Post this up -
I was so pleased that President Bush called for a North American Free Trade Agreement, because I think the ultimate answer in South America is to bring prosperity, bring American know-how down there, and let's build one great team in the Americas. I think if we do that, if we tend these security challenges there, it's all going to rebound to our benefit. We're going to find countries in the world responding to us, supporting and reinforcing our own values and interests.
And then explain to everyone that those are the words of Democratic Presidential candidate, Wesley Clark, spoken in 2001 at a Republican Party fundraiser- [
http://www.opinionjournal.com/...]. Also, mention that Clark was a member of BNAC. What's BNAC?- glad you asked. Much more below...
Now, I don't know about you, but by May of 2001, I had figured out that NAFTA SUCKED, BIG TIME. So did most everyone else- `A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of NAFTA found only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the the NAFTA agreement", while 58 percent expressed dissatisfaction with the pact.' (pg. 65 of my autographed copy of "Hostile Takeover" by David Sirota).
Anyone remember the billions of tax-payer dollars spent to "bail-out" companies in the mid-to-late 90's? Remember Perot saying on national TV that "that great big sucking sound you'll here will be American jobs"? Seriously, who here at Kos was supporting NAFTA in 2001? Wesley Clark was, that's who. If you were pleased that Bush wanted NAFTA in 2001, what finally made you come to your senses by 2006? The record of NAFTA was well known by 2001. I'm guessing that Clark is really referring to the FTAA, which stank so much it basically failed upon arrival.
Here's the rest of Clark's ridiculous statement, continuing after he said "reinforcing our own values and interests"
"We're going to find tremendous prosperity and crossover. We're going to find it in the state of Arkansas and even the city of Little Rock. Maybe even northwest Arkansas will benefit from all this. We've seen it already in Nafta. We're going to see it tenfold in the years ahead
Hmmm...Arkansas benefited from NAFTA? I can't figure out what he's talking about there, but I wonder if it has anything to with the fact that Clark was a signing member of BNAC for the Stephens Group http://www.cdhowe.org/... (warning pdf)Wesley Clark's name on page 9. There is a disclaimer on page 8, however, that says "The endorsement by the undersigned of this study does not necessarily mean that each BNAC member agrees with everything the authors say." The members alongside Clark are diverse, encompassing International Medical Corps, Cargill, Moosehead Breweries, GE Industrial Systems, Royal Dutch/Shell, British American Tobacco, etc.
BNAC's self description-
The BNAC is supportive of economic liberalization and political cooperation on a broad international basis, and believes that close personal ties and cooperation among leaders from various spheres in the three countries will continue to play a special role in promoting constructive approaches to common challenges.
They want a " WTO-plus approach with the elimination of transatlantic industrial tariffs".
I've read the BNAC pdf, and I'm not claiming that it says "exploit the people of these countries so that the huge multinational corporations and investment banks can make a huge profit while we gut wages along with safety and environmental regulations". The people who come up with these trade proposals get paid so it never sounds that way.
But let me give you the general idea - BNAC recognizes that there are problems with "health and safety standards...environmental policy, eco-labeling, competition laws...and the emerging clash over genetically modified organisms". "Issues of food safety and environmental protection are becoming even more explosive." That's because the previous "free-trade" agreements have ignored those topics to the detriment of workers and to the benefit of big business. BNAC does not acknowledge that reality in it's study. For example, they claim "Tariffs on textiles and clothing, leather, rubber, footwear, travel goods, fish and fish products and transport equipment remain needlessly steep on both sides of the Atlantic." But fail to realize that reducing those tariffs will increase those explosive issues. BNAC -"Because policymakers in these areas operate with mandates and priorities that do not involve trade liberalization, they respond to different problems and answer to different interest groups -groups which often have little interest in free trade, and sometimes vocally resist such moves" Usually, the term "interest group" is used to describe the general population- labor and environmental groups, or farmers worried about these trade deals.
BNAC-
"In the face of this difficult challenge -achieving the broader policy cooperation and compromises necessary to manage transatlantic economic integration - there is worrying evidence that political pressures are pushing both sides in the wrong direction."
I'm guessing that the "wrong direction" BNAC is concerned about it the recent moves of special "interest groups" trying to have a say in these "free" trade agreements. Basically, the CEO's and lawyers who used to have free reign over these issues are having to recognize the will of the people.
Let me tell you a little story about another "free-trade" Democrat from Arkansas named Bill. Before he was elected, he said "only- only- if trading partner countries lifted their wage rates and their labor standards and they cleaned up their environment so we could both go up together, instead of being dragged down". (6/12/92 townhall meeting- thanks again David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover" for the quote and source). He went back on that promise.