Trade with Canada has always been essential, as Canada has been the US closest trading partner over both country’s histories. Canada and the US had strong trade relations with the Auto-Pact, which existed well before NAFTA and integrated the US and Canadian auto manufacturing plants. When jobs were lost in this industry in Detroit, they were lost as well in Ontario. In that Canadian region, 40% of the jobs are linked with the auto sector, much of which is Vertically Integrated with the US plants in Detroit. With recent losses to Asian auto manufacturers Canada has suffered as well. With 92% trade for Canada with the US, when there is a problem in America Canadians also suffer from decisions of American companies as do many Americans.

Regarding a North American Union, no one in the United States, Mexico or Canada wished for such a Union in any serious regard. It was an idea under neo-liberal economic theory which drove alot of US foreign policy in trade with its neighbors since NAFTA and beyond through almost every trade agreement that reducing economic barriers to trade would allow American companies to compete on par with foriegn competitors in their own countries. These agreements helped many American companies invest abroad without restrictions, but the theory never went beyond multilateral trade. In Canada and Mexico the belief is that culturally, economically and socially there is no desire for such a strong cultural and economic tie with the US. Beyond the difficulties of having economies which are several times smaller than the US, it would also lead to a loss of control over economic policy which have kept Mexico and Canada in heathy standing despite recent US economic troubles. A North American Union has never been a serious reality and is used mostly as a straw man arguement to create dissent against trade. No elected official would approach such a Union as it is assured they would not be successful in being elected.

With regards to trade agreements, the United States while passing legislation by means which many do not agree with, it is usually the US who has the advantage with trade agreements over its trading partners. Much of the newer agreements have been with smaller nations or ones which hope to have more developments as to create closer friendly ties with the US and helps the US promote development within those economies which often need to trade with the US to reduce poverty in their nation..a small sacrifice for the US, but a great help to countries which suffer from poverty and inequality.

Since the first city states the need for trade has been essential for local people and the progress of their business. When Americans sell billions of goods and services abroad there is never an issue, and allowing these goods to be sold into Canada and Mexico creates many jobs and profit fro Americans. Others have the right to sell to Americans as well, but if the relationship takes massive amounts of jobs away there needs to be action taking towards those trading relationships in order to create a fair and equitable response for all parties. American trade is not mutally exclusive and it necessary for growth, but targeting the correct problems is essential for the next President in order to keep cash flows coming into the US and going out to proper trading partners. Every country wants sovereignty, but no one has taken this away from the American people. It has always been the US to decide how it wishes to form policy and effect its own people. Americans need leaders who can choose policy and take actions before placing the blame on others for policy which will not help the average citizen and alienate good neighbors and trading relationships. This is essential to the progress of any Nation, America included.

The term ‘Free Trade’ is usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental barriers to international trade. There is no doubt that some recent free trade agreements have not been very good for the American worker. On the other hand, the agreements have been great for the large multinational corporations, particularly those that have moved their manufacturing plants from the United States to China, Mexico and other low-wage countries where they can hire people there for a few dollars a week. These corporations can now produce their products without worrying about the costs of meeting OSHA requirements, providing employee health care or pensions for its workers and then they can bring their products back into the USA to sell. These products oftentimes are not made to the same quality standards as when they were produced in America and as recents incidents involving Chineese imports have shown, these products can pose health hazards to Americans as well.

The supporters of many free trade agreements, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have always promised increased exports, better jobs and better wages. Under many of these free trade agreements, however, just the opposite has occurred. Under NAFTA, for example, the U.S. trade deficit has soared and now averages $55-65 Billion dollars per month; the U.S. has lost over a million manufacturing jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly. In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of either the United States or Mexico.

In 2005, a new mechanism was created to speed the further expansion of the NAFTA free trade agreement into a North American Union. It is called the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)’ The SPP is designed to facilitate the establishment of a North America Union through the “economic integration” of the US, Mexico and Canada. The most important feature of the SPP is that it does not require congressional ratification or the passage of any federal legislation by the congress of the United States. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States. How else would Mexican truckers be able to begin operating in the USA over the objections of Congress, American truckers and most of the American people?

The people and their elected representatives in congress no longer seem to have a voice when it comes to international trade. This is definitely a national sovereignty issue. International trade issues that affect 300+ million Americans should be made by the people’s representatives in Congress, not by a handful of government bureaucrats and corporate elites who use their government connections to bypass congress and ignore our Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
The goal of these international trade elite is to create an integrated North American Union, complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the proposed Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the destruction of our national sovereignty. A free America, with limited, constitutional government, would just be a memory.

Not all free trade agreements are bad, but I believe that the United States of America must withdraw from any international agreements that infringe upon the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the American people.

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
www.johnwallaceforcongress.com