What is the FTAA?
What is the relationship of FTAA to NAFTA?
Does NAFTA/FTAA really promote free trade?
As with the EU, the major advocates of NAFTA/FTAA generally try to deceive the public as to the magnitude and real objective of their revolutionary proposals. Moreover, when they do brag about their plans in public, they do so in terms such as "convergence," "integration," "harmonization," that are non-threatening to those unfamiliar with these globalist code words. Nevertheless, there have been some startling and candid admissions in the general press:
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission and a longtime power in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), called the vote on NAFTA the single most important decision that Congress would make during Mr. Clinton's first term. Indeed, Kissinger acknowledged in the Los Angeles Times that passage "will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War...."
David Rockefeller, Kissinger's superior among the Trilateralists and CFR coterie, went so far as to say in the Wall Street Journal that he didn't "think that 'criminal' would be too strong a word to describe ... rejecting NAFTA." Exhorted Rockefeller: "Everything is in place -- after 500 years -- to build a true 'new world' in the Western Hemisphere."
Another proponent, Andrew Reding of the New School for Social Research, admitted in a Canadian publication that the passage of NAFTA, which he called "an incipient form of international government," would "signal the formation, however tentatively, of a new political unit -- North America." This is not idle speculation, for as Reding suggested, "with economic integration will come political integration."
Representative Robert Matsui (D-CA), another NAFTA supporter, candidly admitted that the agreement brings with it a surrender of American "independence." And NAFTA supporter Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) has bragged about the "iron fist" of the pact. No, NAFTA is not about free trade.
In case there is any doubt about the teeth in the NAFTA agreement, consider the candid statements of U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor, the negotiator of the "side agreement" on the environment. Kantor said officially that "no nation can lower labor or environmental standards, only raise them...." In the Wall Street Journal on August 17, 1993, Kantor stated explicitly that "no country in the agreement can lower its environmental standards -- ever."
The 1994 Miami conference to launch the globalist drive for an FTAA followed closely on the heels of congressional approval of NAFTA. Mack McLarty, President Clinton�s chief of staff, offered this revealing comment about the Miami Summit: "[T]his summit is much broader than [lowering tariffs], and that�s how it should be looked at. This is not a trade summit, it is an overall summit. It will focus on economic integration and convergence." Few Americans noticed when Mr. McLarty subsequently moved on to a partnership with Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State under Republican Richard Nixon).
These public admissions have been reenforced in elitist publications with a more limited circulation. Particularly revealing were the admissions in "Western Hemisphere Economic Integration," a study published in 1994 by the influential Institute for International Economics. The elitist support for the study reads like a "Who�s Who of the American Establishment." Among the notables on the advisory committee was Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. "After four decades of dedicated effort," said the report, "Western Europe has just arrived at the threshold of � monetary union, and fiscal coordination. It seems likely that trade and investment integration will proceed at a faster pace within the Western Hemisphere."
"Finally," the study stated, "the more countries that participate in integration and the wider its scope, the greater the need for some institutional mechanism to administer the arrangements and to resolve the inevitable disputes, and the stronger the case for a common legal framework." (Which means supranational legislative, executive, and judicial institutions, naturally � a new regional government.) "The European Commission, Council, Parliament, and Court of Justice have many of the powers of comparable institutions in federal states," the report noted approvingly before commenting, "On this subject, we score Europe with a 5 [on a scale of 0 to 5]."
One-Hemisphere Under the Fed - The New American - October 11, 1999
The banksters seek the "dollarization" of the Americas as a means of establishing a single economic authority that will extend from Seattle to Santiago.
What is the real purpose of the FTAA?