It’s hard to imagine most Americans getting worked up enough over a
political issue these days that they would show up — en masse — to
protest it. But that’s exactly what has been happening in Seattle this week. Thousands of protesters,
citing labor and environmental concerns, took to Seattle’s usually calm
streets to lodge their complaints against what they perceive as a
globalist threat to their respective causes.
If any one lesson is to be taken from this event, it is this: As I
reported in a recent column,
every American does not share a utopian, borderless world vision.
That’s what membership in the WTO advances.
More to the point, however, could somebody please explain why it is
that we even need the WTO? Are we simply incapable of negotiating our
own trade agreements? As Charlie Reese
pointed out in a column yesterday, Congress — and not some
supranational organization — is the one entity charged with
establishing and approving U.S. trade measures. So how can membership
in the WTO support this constitutional requirement?
Having made these points, there are some intelligent arguments being
made by notable conservatives against those who have expressed
apprehension over the WTO. Rush Limbaugh, for example, noted during his
broadcast Tuesday that America’s problems don’t rest with the WTO but
instead center mostly on the illegalities, corruption and routine
constitutional violations in Washington, D.C. He characterized the WTO
protests as misplaced and, to an extent, misguided. Fair enough.
But I think such well-intentioned reprimands oversimplify the
concerns millions of us have over the implications of such global
entities. In many respects, I believe the fear is well grounded and
justified.
It is no secret, for example, that President Clinton, most of his
cabinet and a good part of the serving congressional delegation favor
global authorities like the WTO and the United Nations. That is apparent
in a number of executive and legislative branch initiatives over the
past decade or so.
I also don’t believe I can be convinced that favoring such global
organizations is not akin to ceding power and sovereignty.
In the case of the WTO, it exists, in large part, to establish trade
parameters for member nations. But as I just demonstrated, that power
is supposed to rest solely with Congress. As Reese said, simply “rubber
stamping” voluminous trade agreements negotiated on behalf of 150 other
nations does not hold the same spirit of “negotiating trade agreements”
intended by the Constitution.
Even more telling is the fact that Clinton would not convene the
Seattle WTO meeting if there were no plans to “use” the global agency’s
authority and strengthen its resolve. What would be the point?
Republicans who seek to convince skeptical Americans that their
allegiance does not lie with global institutions would have done well to
deny Clinton’s request to “pay our back dues” to the U.N. a few weeks
ago. Politics aside, most people know how much support — militarily and
financially — the U.S. taxpayer provides the U.N. every year. Those
same Americans also realize that we pay some 25 percent of the U.N.’s
total budget — over and above these other financial and logistical
contributions. We “owe” them nothing, and yet — with Republican help
— we “paid up” anyway.
Furthermore, no one is really saying that American commerce should
not be global. For the most part, it has always been
“global”; we have traded with the world since the day we won our
independence.
What most critics of the WTO are insisting upon is that global trade
should be level, fair, and — ultimately — premised upon
policies decided by this country, not some supranational cabal.
Where is the harm in that? Isn’t that what a free and independent nation
does?
Then there is the worry that it will be impossible to always
get the best deal for American producers and corporations if we have to
rely on an organization that places U.S. interests on par with dozens of
smaller, economically insignificant countries.
Rush himself made the comparison. He said — and I agree — that we
should always strive to build the world’s best and most powerful
military force, one that is superior to any other nation on earth. It
only follows that we cannot accomplish that goal if others who will not
be affected by those decisions establish our military priorities. In
this vein, conservatives have consistently argued against allowing the
U.N. to set our military priorities and, again, they’re right.
Why, then, do we not apply this same maxim to our economic and trade
decisions? If we can’t trust a supranational cabal to make the best
decisions for our military, why do we want to trust them to make the
best trade decisions for us?
That is a double standard to me, and it lends more credibility to
those who mistrust the WTO. But it is the justification WTO supporters
are using to promote an alliance poised to benefit mostly a few
corporate globalists whom — coincidentally — fund the campaigns of
those making this decision.
What’s more, it seems patently ludicrous to hold a militarily and
economically superior superpower on par with an inferior country. That
may sound inherently arrogant, but keep in mind that my goal is no
different than that of these other countries — to see that we get the
best deal possible. We can’t do that if we let the WTO — or anybody
else — make trade and economic decisions for us.
Though the WTO is, ostensibly, only an arbiter of trade
disputes, I say we don’t need them. We’re the richest nation in the
world, so if we need something like the WTO to barter better trade
agreements for us, I’d say that represents a failure on our part. A
better plan would be to recruit smarter, shrewder, and more
business-oriented American trade negotiators.
Are WTO supporters telling me that in a country of 270 million, we
can’t find a thousand shrewd businessmen?
