
New World Order, Clinton-Style
World Trade... Yes! World Government... No!

Congress is expected to vote soon on whether or not to put the
United States into a new World Trade Organization (WTO), a sort of
Economic United Nations.

Like NAFTA, the WTO agreement will bypass the clear requirement in
the U.S. Constitution that treaties are valid only if ratified by
two-thirds of the Senators. WTO will be submitted under a newly-
invented procedure called "fast track," which labels the treaty
an "executive agreement," forbids amendments, and calls for only
a simple majority in both Houses of Congress.

The WTO will be much worse than the UN, because the WTO is based
on the one- country-one-vote pattern. This means the United
States will have only one vote out of 117 nations, and no veto.
We'll have only the same vote as Somalia or Haiti or Cuba or
Rwanda or Korea or Guyana (population 735,000) or Antigua
(population 64,000).

Third World countries will hold 83 percent of the votes in the
WTO. Most of them are dictatorships, are not our friends, and look
upon international organizations as vehicles to redistribute U.S.
wealth and technology to themselves. More than three- fourths of
the WTO member nations voted against the United States on more
than half of UN votes in 1993.

The WTO will make us subject to a new unelected multinational
bureaucracy, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, that will set,
administer, and enforce rules of trade for the entire world.

The WTO is designed to function as the global trade pillar of a
triumvirate that will plan and control the world's economy. The
other two pillars are the World Bank, which loans capital to
developing nations, and the International Money Fund (IMF), which
supervises the flow of money around the world.

This three-legged plan to plan and control the world's economy was
devised at the Bretton Woods Conference at the end of World War
II. The World Bank and the IMF got off the ground rapidly (largely
financed, of course, by the United States), but the global trade
arm, then called the International Trade Organization (ITO), was
blocked by President Harry Truman and U.S. Senators who concluded
that it would diminish U.S. sovereignty and interfere with U.S.
domestic laws.

In the course of the ITO talks, the countries negotiated a
reduction of global tariffs by a 1947 agreement called the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Originally, GATT was
supposed to be part of the ITO, but when ITO was rejected by the
United States, GATT became the basic multilateral agreement on
global trade.

Since the 1940's, there have been seven additional rounds of
international trade negotiations under GATT. On April 15, U.S.
representatives in Morocco signed the Final Act of the Uruguay
Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, the 22,000-page
document that creates the WTO to replace GATT and is now being
submitted to Congress.

WTO is very different from GATT. GATT was a contractual
relationship among sovereign nations. All member nations must
agree to make any changes. If there is a dispute, action and
penalties can happen only when all agree. The GATT staff in Geneva
has little power.

The WTO is a supra-national body in Geneva that will set,
administer, and enforce the global rules of trade. It includes a
legislature (called the Ministerial Conference, consisting of a
117 nations casting one vote each), an executive branch
(including a Director-General, a multinational bureaucracy
consisting of a secretariat, committees, councils, dispute
panels, and review bodies), and a supreme court (that will decide
trade disputes, and whose rulings cannot be vetoed by any nation).

The WTO's procedures are dramatically different from those now
used by GATT. GATT requires a consensus decision to impose a
penalty recommended by a dispute panel. Under GATT, the United
States can reject rulings that intrude on our interests and we can
veto sanctions.

Under WTO, we are locked in; unilateral action is forbidden. We
must abide by the judgments of the WTO's Dispute Settlement Board.
It and the WTO's dispute panels will deliberate and vote in
secret.

Article XVI of the WTO obligates the United States to change our
laws, regulations, and administrative procedures to make them
conform to the WTO. The WTO will have the final say about whether
U.S. laws meet WTO requirements, and WTO can impose financial
penalties and sanctions if WTO decides that our laws don't comply.

Of course, WTO is presented as a boost toward "free trade" and
cutting tariffs. For that, we don't need WTO; GATT was adequate.
Tariffs have been dramatically reduced since GATT was formed, and
besides, free trade cannot be called free trade if it is mandated
by a bureaucracy in Geneva.

The Office of Management and Budget warns that the cost of WTO
will be $14 billion over five years, and nearly $40 billion over
10 years. The Clinton Administration is floating the idea of
waiving the Congressional pay-as-you-go budget requirement and
adding the cost of this deal onto the national debt.

The WTO would turn control of the U.S. economy over to a bunch of
bureaucrats in Geneva, accountable to no one. WTO would control
U.S. trade, investment and technology, and make decisions about
our jobs, production, labor standards, environment, and security.

The Congress must reject WTO if America is to remain an
independent nation with the sovereign power to write our own laws
and make our own decisions about our own livelihood.


 U.S. Troops Under UN Control?

In the same week that the news media were preoccupied with Paula
Jones filing her lawsuit, President Clinton signed a Presidential
Decision Directive (PDD) asserting his authority "to place U.S.
forces under the operational control of a foreign commander."
This is the most unconstitutional transfer of power in the history
of America. It will put U.S. troops under foreign command and also
under the United Nations rules of engagement.

And it's a secret order! The White House won't let the American
people see a copy of the PDD that Clinton signed. All we are
allowed to see is the State Department "summary" (which probably
conceals its most outrageous effects). This PDD, dated May 1994,
is the same document that last year was called PDD 13. The number
13 was probably ditched as bad PR. It was all ready for Clinton's
signature in August 1993 when history intervened to delay it. In
Somalia, U.S. troops were killed, wounded, captured, and dragged
through the streets in humiliation. Adverse Congressional
reaction put PDD 13 in a temporary deep freeze. But the New World
Order advocates were determined to proceed with their objective.

Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die. And it will,
indeed, be do or die for Americans in the U.S. Armed Forces.
That's what military service is all about: being ready to take
orders, and do or die to carry them out. The only problem is that,
when young Americans enlist, they rightfully expect that those
giving the orders will be Americans, and that the orders will be
according to American law and for American goals and interests.

This May 1994 PDD is called "The Clinton Administration's Policy
on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations." It should be called
"The Clinton Administration's Policy on Transferring Congress's
War Power to a Multilateral Organization under the United
Nations."

Some people think Clinton doesn't have a foreign policy, but
that's not true. Instead of a foreign policy designed to protect
America and preserve our interests, the Clinton foreign policy is
designed to subordinate American interests to a multinational
authority.

This new PDD makes it our job to combat "current threats to
peace," which include "territorial disputes, armed ethnic
conflicts, civil wars, and the collapse of governmental authority
in some states." There probably is not a year in recorded history
when such events were not transpiring somewhere in the world, so
when did it become our responsibility to get into the middle of
the action?

 Even if these troubles don't directly affect American interests,
the PDD asserts that their "cumulative effect" requires us to act.
But who says? Not until Clinton's secret PDD did any American
official have the gall to say that resolving these conflicts is
our job.

Not only has Clinton's secret PDD changes the goal of our foreign
policy, but it has also changed the mission of our Armed Services.
The PDD states that the "establishment of a capability to conduct
multilateral peace operations is part of our National Security
Strategy and National Military Strategy."

"The primary mission of the U.S. Armed Forces," continues this
PDD, "remains to be prepared to fight and win two simultaneous
regional conflicts." The PDD doesn't call this war; in classic
Orwellian language, this PDD confirms that Clinton plans to
deploy American forces for "peacekeeping." But peacekeeping's
open-ended definition includes "promoting democracy, regional
security, and economic growth."

The U.S. State Department doesn't win any battles on the
battlefield, but it is very adept at winning rounds of double-
talk. This new PDD shows why. While the President, it says, "will
never relinquish command authority over U.S. forces," on a case by
case basis "the President will consider placing appropriate U.S.
forces under the operational control of a competent UN commander
for specific UN operations authorized by the Security Council."

This means that, while we may still call our President the
Commander-in-Chief, Slick Willie will allege that "operational
control is a subset of command," and then delegate operational
control of U.S. forces to a foreigner who reports to the UN
Security Council.

"The participation of U.S. military personnel in UN operations
can, in particular circumstances, serve U.S. interests," the PDD
asserts. However, under the U.S. Constitution, that should be a
matter for Congress-not Clinton or the UN- to decide.

The new Clinton policy clearly subordinates U.S. interests to a
multinational authority. As the PDD puts it, "The U.S. will
continue to emphasize the UN as the primary international body
with the authority to conduct peacekeeping operations."

If U.S. servicemen are captured by the enemy while they are
serving under multinational command as part of some peacekeeping
force, the Administration will demand that they be "immediately
released to UN authorities." That's not very reassuring.

Another slippery section of this new Clinton directive is the
stipulation that the Department of Defense "will pay the UN
assessment" for the "peacekeeping missions." That sounds like a
cunning way to say "we're not cutting the defense budget" while
actually diverting some defense appropriations into UN projects.

Are you ready to pay for the blue-helmeted operations of the New
World Order? In money and in blood?
------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org)
