Posts Tagged WTO
by: Susanne Posel
July 13, 2012
The idea behind global governance is that “there does not exist any serious environmental problem which cannot be solved through minimizing of energy and material consumption.”
Choosing “the creation of a global society with global democracy” will “improve the function of global financial markets” and “environmental quality.”
George Soros suggests in The Crisis of Global Capitalism that a “worldwide alliance will operate in promoting principles of international law.” However, there is little concern in the globalist Elite’s view of local markets.
Soros goes on to explain the globalist perspective: “To stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need some global system of political decision making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy. A global society does not mean a global state.
“To abolish the existence of states is neither feasible nor desirable; but insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. Interestingly, the greatest opposition to this idea is coming from the United States, which, as the sole remaining superpower, is unwilling to subordinate itself to any international authority.
“The United States faces a crisis of identity: Does it want to be a solitary superpower or the leader of the free world? The two roles could be blurred as long as the free world was confronting an ‘evil empire’, but the choice now presents itself in much starker terms. Unfortunately we have not even started to consider it. The popular inclination in the United States is to go it alone, but that would deprive the world of the leadership it so badly needs. Isolationism could be justified only if the market fundamentalists were right and the global economy could sustain itself without a global society.”
By empowering such international institutions such as the World Bank , the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO) to become powerful economic institutions; as well as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the UN Environmental Program (UNEP) there will be a congruence of international institutions that govern all activity on the planet.
Saturday, July 07, 2012
By: Ethan A. Huff
(NaturalNews) Mexico and Canada have succeeded in a joint effort to strike down an American regulatory policy passed in 2008 that requires country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on meat sold in the U.S. Public Citizen reports that the World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled against the U.S. in a case regarding the matter, a move that will potentially expose millions of Americans to “mystery” meat from unknown origins.
As a member of the WTO, and now the ominous Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that allows foreign companies to bypass the American legal system (
), the U.S. is bound to certain international trade rules that supersede its own sovereign laws. These rules prohibit WTO member countries from engaging in so-called unfair trade practices that discriminate against other WTO member countries.
In this particular case, Mexico and Canada filed a dispute with the WTO claiming that U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) meat labeling requirements deviate significantly from international standards, and unfairly discriminate against WTO member countries. COOL requirements end up making it easier for U.S. meat packers to source meat from domestic animals rather than foreign ones, for instance, which Canada and Mexico say puts the U.S. at an unfair economic advantage.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson
[NaturalNews] In the spirit of election season political posturing, the Obama White House has announced that it is filing a trade lawsuit against China for restricting exports on rare earth metals and other materials used in the production of touchscreen mobile phones, military weapons, laptop computers, and various other high-tech devices.
The poster child administration of meaningless political rhetoric, Obama and Co. has taken a convenient interest in China’s misdealings with the U.S. and the rest of the world just as its popularity among Americans has reached an all-time low. And in a desperate bid to revive support primarily among Caucasian, middle-class voters, Obama is now feigning concern for American manufacturing with his lawsuit stunt, which will reportedly be handled by the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Since the U.S. no longer mines any rare earth metals and elements from its own earth, the import of these critical manufacturing components from China is necessary to maintain a steady supply of fancy electronic gadgets and war paraphernalia, two of the primary industrial sectors that are keeping the American economy from all-out collapsing. But paper tiger Obama’s latest round of litigative grandstanding appears to be nothing more than a desperate election season ploy, as it is unlikely that the lawsuit will come to much in the end.
Mitt Romney has decided to exploit the lawsuit for his own political benefit as well, having recently promised publicly to dub China a “currency manipulator” on his first day of office should he be elected president. Romney was referring, of course, to allegations that China has been unfairly devaluing its own currency to set it self at an unfair advantage — the U.S., of course, with its phony Federal Reserve notes has been manipulating its own fiat currency for decades.
“It is rash and unfair for the United States to put forward a lawsuit against China before the WTO, which may hurt economic relations between the world’s largest and second-largest economies,” wrote China’s official Xinhua news agency in a recent commentary on the situation. “A better choice for the United States would be sitting down with China face-to-face and solve the problem through negotiations instead of making it an internationalized issue.”
Some have also pointed out the blatant hypocrisy of the Obama Administration in seeking increased access to rare earth metals that are reportedly responsible for much environmental destruction in China (
), while simultaneously acting as though it is promoting environmental protection measures (