posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:21 PM
Originally posted by hackster
the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively
overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the
And if the US government agrees to enter into international trade relations, it should have to pay under international trade law.
The same arguements against these laws, I am sure, were made against Federal Law trumping State Law.
Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union,
The CFR recomendations were not for a North American Union, they were for coordination between the US, Canadian, and Mexican governments on the issues
of security, immigration, and trade.
A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity
Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in
Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.
Bush never signed that document. The CFR comissioned a panel to come up with some ideas on the subject. The "BUilding a North American Community"
document was the recommendations of that panel. It wasn't a legal document, and it wasn't signed into law.
The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new
regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010.
This is false. The report makes recommendations for what can be accomplishedin 5 years, 10 years, etc. It doesn't call for an internationalist
government strucuture. It calls for more cooperations between the Meixcan, Canadian, and US governments.
As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster,
more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes.
And what, precisely, is wrong with that?
If we are to foster economic trade between nations, then those nations need a way in which to settle disputes. The WTO already
does that, for
the whole planet. What the author of the web article is talking about is merely a similar process between the US, Canada, and Mexico.
Please explain why there shouldn't be such an insitution.