The Globalist Trade Agreement You Didn’t Hear About

Source: TheInternationalForecaster
James Corbett
May 6, 2017

You remember the SPP, don’t you? The attempt to create a North American Union by harmonizing the border controls, environmental and business regulations and security forces of Canada, the US and Mexico?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report caught wind of it, publicized its secret meetings, and organized widespread resistance to expose the plot (and expose police provocateuring in the process).

Remember SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and CISPA, the attempt by globalist corporations and totalitarian control freaks to crack down on the free and open internet under cover of copyright policing?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report warned you about them and the masses organized to derail them at the last second.

Remember the TPP, the attempt to create a free trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific that would have enriched the globalist corporate elite at the expense of everyone else?

Of course you do, because sites like The Corbett Report sounded the alarm in the early days of the agreement and explained the finished deal in plain English when it finally emerged from the swamp, whipping up a populist backlash that ended the deal.

Remember the WTO’s Trade Facilitation Agreement? You know, the all-encompassing agreement between the WTO’s 164 members (97% of global GDP) that has been hailed as “the most significant multilateral trade deal concluded since the establishment of the World Trade Organisation?” The one that implements the globalists’ wet dream of harmonizing export and import processes and trade infrastructure among the majority of the world’s population?

No? Doesn’t ring a bell? Hmmm…I wonder why that is?

Don’t worry. If you’re only hearing about the agreement now, it’s not because you weren’t paying attention. It’s because almost no one was paying attention, including me. If the daily flurry of craziness that is the Trump-era news cycle has ever left you wondering what you’re being distracted from, here is one answer. It’s called the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement, and it just entered into force in February.

That’s right, it’s in effect as we speak. No time to familiarize yourself with this one. No time to organize opposition. No time to examine the implications. It’s already here.

For those of us who haven’t heard about the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) before, here’s the crash course:

Part of the long-fought, arduous, hotly contested negotiations surrounding the WTO’s so-called “Bali Package” trade agreement of 2013, the TFA specifically aims to reduce bureaucratic red tape and regulatory uncertainty around trade issues between WTO member nations, by, among other things, harmonizing customs procedures, removing delays on clearance and movement of goods, and reducing fees, formalities and roadblocks to legal recourse for importers and exporters.

Or, in the official gobbledygook of the WTO’s PR-ese:

“The TFA contains provisions for expediting the movement, release and clearance of goods, including goods in transit. It also sets out measures for effective cooperation between customs and other appropriate authorities on trade facilitation and customs compliance issues. It further contains provisions for technical assistance and capacity building in this area. The Agreement will help improve transparency, increase possibilities to participate in global value chains, and reduce the scope for corruption.”

The WTO’s own 2015 study about the agreement shows that it will reduce the trading costs of member nations by 14.3%, reduce average import times for goods by a day and a half and export times by two days, increase global merchandise exports by $1 trillion, and make blind lepers walk on water again. Or something like that.

So what’s not to love?

Well, in the broader sense this agreement can be seen as a life-saver for the WTO, whose very raison d’être as a type of global governing body for world trade has been called into question by the fact that, before the TFA, it hadn’t actually managed to ratify a single trade agreement in its 22-year history.

That’s right, the so-called “Doha Development Round” of talks that the body began in 2001—its “ambitious effort to make globalization more inclusive and help the world’s poor,” to quote the Rothschild-mouthpiece, The Economist—has been ongoing for a decade and a half and currently remains in limbo after years of rancorous debate. Even the much-ballyhooed Bali Package was just the framework for what has now become the TFA, meaning that this agreement has single-handedly brought the WTO back from the brink of irrelevance that the NAFTA, the TTIP and TPP, and numerous other regional, multilateral and bilateral trade agreements have pushed it towards.

But more specifically, the TFA is a perfect example of everything that’s wrong with globalization: Under cover of “development” and “trade,” and with a lot of flowery rhetoric about helping the poorest of the poor and facilitating global cooperation, this agreement in fact does little but penalize the poorest countries by forcing them to adopt standards and practices that are as expensive and difficult to implement as they are useless to local industries, farmers and laborers. At the same time, it further erodes local autonomy by forcing almost the entirety of the planet to adopt the same standards and regulations on imports and exports. And, to top it all off, it is the backbone upon which backdoor implementations of various unpopular policies and ideas, from regional trade agreements to the cashless control grid, will be built.

As the Business Standard notes: “This deal will not only resuscitate the WTO, whose relevance was fast eroding due to proliferation of free-trade agreements, but will also revive multilateralism in global trade. Most important, it demonstrates that trade agreements are no longer just about tariffs — they are also about making trade easier, whether through dovetailing domestic regulations, or through easing actual paperwork.”

This is an attempt not at a trade deal in the traditional sense, but at a reformulation of the idea of a “trade agreement” as an act of cross-border regulatory harmonization.

Furthermore, Article 7 of the agreement includes a mandate on electronic payments: “Each Member shall, to the extent practicable, adopt or maintain procedures allowing the option of electronic payment for duties, taxes, fees and charges collected by customs incurred upon importation and exportation.” The measure, fairly innocuous by itself, is yet another attempt to normalize the mandating of cashless payments in international trade. But it is supplemented by other unaccountable global governmental bodies like the UN’s Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business, which, along with the usual Global Goals-y/Climate Change-y/Regional Coordination-y globalist mandates, also coordinates technical cooperation on trade issues, including E-payments and E-purchasing.

And when I say global, I really do mean global. There are no virtuous Chinese messiahs who are valiantly fighting off these insidious global processes, or Russian saviors who can save us from the big bad globalists, or Indian gurus who will protect us from the onslaught. Not only are all five BRICS members themselves vassal states of the WTO behemoth, but the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP, yet another acronymed head of the United Nations hydra) has been hard at work promoting the Trade Facilitation Agreement as the “key to unlocking trade potential along OBOR” (which, for those without their special-issued globalist decoder ring, is an acronym for the “One Belt, One Road” initiative of China that we talked about last week).

So cross the Trade Facilitation Agreement off your list of worries. It has already arrived, and it arrived (as do all the most insidious global governmental structures and deals) not with a bang or even a whimper but a silent, self-congratulatory smile and a knowing nod among the globalist jet set. This is how the real structures of global government will be set up: Not in the blazing noon-day sun of publicity, not with fanfare and protest and tumult, but in quiet, backroom deals reached out of sight and out of mind of the general public.

So, the logical question to ask is: What are they working on next?

Read More At: TheInternationalForecaster.com

Advertisements

Brazil Has Now Refused All Imports Of US-Grown Genetically Modified Crops

Brazil
Source: UndergroundReporter.org
Christina Sarich
June 15, 2016

The list of countries refusing Monsanto’s genetically-modified crops continues to grow. Highlighting the world divide on the issue, Brazil recently refused all U.S.-grown GM crops. While we are continually force-fed genetically modified foods — since they are in approximately 80 percent of all packaged, conventional foods in grocery stores in America — other countries are refusing to import them, grow them, or sell them within their borders.

As more nations pass laws that impose trade regulations on genetically modified goods, despite World Trade Organization back room deals, Monsanto and their cut-outs opt for ever-more devious strategies to insinuate their wares onto the world.

Despite this, as a Bloomberg article points out, “In recent years, some of the largest commodity trading companies have refused to take certain GMO crops from farmers because the seeds used hadn’t received a full array of global approvals, something that can lead to holdups at ports or even the rejection of entire cargoes.”

For example, Brazil.

In this instance, it is Brazil’s chicken farmers who won’t feed their birds GM corn; but there are other countries opting out of GM crops, too.

Ironically, Brazil is the the second largest producer of GM crops in the world after the U.S., and grows 29 varieties of GM corn, so they are likely pulling rank for trade rather than hoping to save their population’s health — but at least the chicken farmers see the detriment from using GM corn.

This doesn’t mean that a resistance in Brazil isn’t growing as well. Female Members of the Landless Worker’s Movement (MST) broke into a São Paulo State lab and destroyed millions of samples of GM prototypes not long ago that contained a carcinogenic pesticide.

There is a good reason for banning GM crops, even if they are only meant for livestock to consume. A new Seralini study says that the very first GM crop, introduced way back in 1996, was highly toxic to farm animals over the long-term.

Seralini highlights problems such as partial paralysis (paresis) accompanied by great fatigue, and problems in the kidneys and mucosal membranes in the animals, followed by death in 10% of cases,” all from feeding the animals GM crops like corn, soy, and alfalfa. Not surprisingly, he finds that GM maize (like Monsanto’s highly touted Bt variety) are the most toxic of all.

Continue Reading At: UndergroundReporter.org

If America Were A Car, It would Be In The Shop

Geopolitics
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
February 11, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

And if it were in the shop, the mechanics would remove the defective transmission labeled Globalism and install a new one.

The free market, such as it was 60 years ago, was a kind of balancing act, imperfect, but functioning. US manufacturing plants and domestic workers were producing products and selling them at what would now be considered high prices. Compared to what? Compared to prices if the factories had been located overseas, where workers were paid far less, where safety and environmental laws were lax.

But those American workers in factories were making a living wage. They could afford to buy products made in America. Not all workers could, but a lot of them could.

In that “closed system,” the balancing act was: US wages vs. the price of goods produced in America. Could a worker make enough to buy enough of what he wanted? The answer, of course, wasn’t an unqualified yes, but it was a significant yes.

However, Rockefeller Globalists were looking for something else, and they began their earnest effort at transformation in 1945, when the first round of GATT talks took place. Fifty years later, that international treaty was signed and wrapped up, and the World Trade Organization was created.

Suddenly, tariffs were off the table. Foreign companies could export their goods to America, pay no tariff, and sell them cheaply. US companies could shut down domestic factories, go abroad, open up factories there, make goods cheaply, and export them to the US. The whole game changed.

The Globalists’ propaganda, spouted by men like the unctuous Bill Clinton, claimed that, on balance, this would be a good deal for American workers. They could buy what they wanted at lower prices.

Of course, many of those US workers were now out of jobs, because the companies they worked for here had shut down and moved to faraway places. The former balancing act between wages and buying power was destroyed.

And as more US companies moved out of the country, more US workers were unemployed. The old US “closed system” was no more. Everything was “global” now.

That old closed system had worked because, in America, if workers hadn’t been paid a decent wage, they wouldn’t have been able to buy products “made in America,” and the whole system would have collapsed.

But understand this: top-tier Globalists wanted to wreck the American economy. In the wake of the ongoing destruction, they wanted to shift as many economic control mechanisms as possible to the federal government. And they wanted to bulk up mega-corporations, which would operate internationally, with no allegiance to any government or nation.

Globalists were re-shaping the mission of government and corporations, so those twins’ true loyalties were pledged to the agenda of One Planet, under one overarching management system.

The Globalists are on their way.

There is just one problem. As they put a knife into the heart of one vibrant national economy after another (through expanding unemployment), the number of consumers who are able to participate in the new system declines, drops, dries up.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Techie’s Diapers In A Twist Over Trump’s Apple Remark

GLobalism101

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 20, 2016

Trump just said he’d force Apple to make their damn computers in America, and this raised a crib-howl from techies. You know, those super-intelligent “humanitarian progressives” who somehow finesse the fact that their cherished gizmos are manufactured in foreign factories where the workers are virtual slaves.

Techies: “Slaves? Just the cost of doing business. We still love everybody.”

For the moment, to avoid ad hominem arguments, let’s forget that Trump made the remark; and let’s also forget that truly free markets don’t exist on a macro scale.

Here is the obvious knock-you-in-the-face truth: you can’t have a level playing field if you allow US companies to go abroad, set up factories in places where their costs are minimal, and export those products back to the US. That kind of operation destroys companies who are making the same products in America, at much higher costs.

This isn’t economics. You don’t need algorithms to figure it out. You don’t need experts to weigh in with their fatuous bloviations. Anybody with three active brain cells can see the truth.

Here is the bottom line: free markets, to the degree they exist, were never designed for international trade. They were designed for national economies.

In order to make international trade work, you have (you had) tariffs. A company abroad, no matter who owns it, can only ship goods into the US for sale if it pays a big fat tax to level the field.

But then it all changed: no-tariff free trade entered the scene. This was the invention of Globalists, whose ambition was to “liberate mega-corporations” from any and all reasonable obligations, so they could roam the world minus any allegiance to their home countries, and basically act as predators.

This is GATT, the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, the upcoming TPP, and so on. Treaties.

Let’s say there are 50 companies in the US who make sneakers here. The average cost of a pair is $2. That’s the manufacturing cost. Four of these companies shut their plants in the US and go to China, where they make a pair for 16 cents. They bring all those sneakers back here for sale. What happens to the other 46 American companies who are still making their sneakers here? Get the correct answer and you earn an A in Globalism 101.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com