What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved .... As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future. -- Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies (1979)
It was a foregone conclusion. Backed by fellow Council on Foreign Relations members Richard Gephart (D-MO) and Thomas Foley (D-WA) in the House, and George Mitchell (D-ME) in the Senate, George Bush got his fast track. This means he is free to negotiate foreign trade agreements with no interference from Congress, which will have only a yes or no vote on the final pact. In effect, Congress has disarmed itself. This power grab was necessary, we were told, because it would have a "chilling effect" on our trading partners if they knew that a single word of George Bush's arrangements could be changed by anyone in Congress. As the President himself put it, he needs this authority to ease the "Mexican government's fear" of congressional meddling. At immediate issue was the U.S.Mexican Free Trade Agreement, but the free-hand principle will also apply to the ongoing General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) talks with all other nations. In case one should be stunned by the spectacle of a Democratic Congress voluntarily handing over its own power to a Republican president, the explanation is simple. The word went out that this was "must" Insider legislation. "If you oppose this and it goes through, you're finished as a candidate for 1992," said former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt, another CFR member and former member of the Trilateral Commission. Democratic analyst Bob Beckel made no bones about it: "The reality is ultimately you're going to have a northern free trade hemispheric trade zone. Everyone knows that. The only question is how you do it." When House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) joined Majority Leaders Mitchell and Foley (a member of the Trilateral Commission as well as the CFR) in support of George Bush's way to do it, it was all over.
Big Labor Connection
What was really going on? Why did the Democratic leadership, which could easily have killed free trade by gutting the final agreement, fly in the face of its own most important support group, Big Labor? Every union member has been told by his union leaders that free trade is a threat and an abomination; the bitterness about this betrayal by their Democratic politicians is open and deep. Obviously, something infinitely bigger and more important than the usual buying of union members' votes was at stake for the congressmen. Union members would be even more enraged if they knew that the fix was in at the top of their own leadership, for Lane Kirkland, head of the AFL-CIO, is also a member of the Establishment's world-government- promoting Council on Foreign Relations, chaired for many years by super-capitalist David Rockefeller. He is also a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller for the purpose of building oneworldism via a piecemeal, regional approach. Such insider connections between Big Business and Big Labor perhaps explain why it was that, although Big Labor had three years in which to organize opposition to a free trade agreement with Mexico, it somehow didn't get off the ground until the last minute, due to "failure to mobilize their troops in timely fashion"-- hardly a union attribute! "We came with too little, too late," said one union organizer, quoted in the May 22nd Wall Street Journal. As long ago as the presidential campaign of 1988, George Bush promised: "As President, I will work toward creation of a free trade zone including Canada, Mexico and the United States." Ronald Reagan took the first step with his 1988 free trade agreement with Canada; the Bush Administration will be taking another step by negotiating with Mexico a North American Free Trade Agreement, with Canada as one of the negotiating partners. It will either be approved unaltered or rejected outright by Congress. Major players on both sides of this battle over the President's free trade agenda are presenting age-old conflicting arguments to the public -- one for protectionism, the other for the free flow of goods and services across national borders. With cupidity playing upon ignorance, both sides are conning the rest of us. For both sides know that George Bush's North American Free Trade Agreement will have nothing to do with real free trade and everything to do with laying the cornerstone for the economic and eventual political consolidation of first North America, then the entire Western Hemisphere, in preparation for merger into the Insiders' new world order. While Mr. Bush is forging ahead with his not-so-hidden objective on a wave of unprecedented popularity, the media are taking care of those who might remember that Republicans have historically been the party of high tariffs against foreign competition. There has been an "astonishing switch," we are told. No longer are Republicans the party of corporate special privilege. Our Republican presidents have given us unhampered free markets for the benefit of all. The Democrats, on the other hand, are clinging to outmoded concepts, fearing that Mexican cheap labor will flood the American market with cheap goods, putting American firms out of business or forcing them to flee to Mexico, in either case resulting in a loss of U.S. jobs.
Keeping Up Appearances
Lane Kirkland himself, no doubt feeling it necessary to keep up his image as George Bush's Public Enemy No. 1, broke into print in the Wall Street Journal for April 18, 1991 calling free trade with Mexico "a golden opportunity for the rich to get richer at the expense of the working poor" while "hundreds of thousands of American workers lose their jobs" to the "most crudely exploited humans on the planet" who are being forced by the multinationals to live in conditions "rivalling the worst Stalinist regimes." For the record, Lane Kirkland couldn't care less about "crudely exploited humans," as he was one of those who planned Insider Jimmy Carter's collectivized farms in El Salvador which reduced farm workers to the level of serfs tied to government land, far worse off than free Mexican workers. It stands to reason that the Insiders would see to it that Big Labor is headed by one of their own; Mr. Kirkland is one of their most reliable old hands. It can be taken as a matter of fact that it was prearranged that labor would not stand in the way of Mr. Bush's crucial fast track. The current emphasis on foreign trade is misleading in itself, for from 90 to 95 percent of the volume of American business is domestic. If George Bush were sincere about free trade he would concentrate first on abolishing our own atrocious farm program as well as other subsidies, restrictions, regulations, and prolabor and environmental legislation that increase costs and taxes on everything from gasoline to telephone calls, costing American consumers from $30 to $40 billion in excess costs per year. The latest environmental outrage is the 30 percent increase in the price of lumber (translating to about $3,000 for a $150,000 house) as a result of protecting the spotted owl's habitat on the west coast. It must be understood that George Bush is not a free trader; he is simply using free trade rhetoric as the perfect cover for furthering Insider designs. By keeping our eye on the ball instead of listening to Mr. Bush's rhetoric, we can see that his position is in reality as protectionist as Lane Kirkland's. Nor has the Republican Party abandoned its protectionist policies. Far from it! There has been no "astonishing switch" in position, but merely a switch in Republican rhetoric. Although Ronald Reagan's free trade rhetoric ("Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets") gave the Republican Party a new image, this was entirely hypocritical. All that was happening was the establishment of a free trade smokescreen which we now see being used to mask George Bush's actual protectionist policies.
"Free Trade" Record
If this is hard to believe, consider the following moves made by Ronald Reagan:
Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports, resulting in a price hike of nearly $2,000 per car.
Tightened considerably the quotas on imported sugar to double the world price.
Increased restrictions against foreign textiles and apparel, forcing up the price of clothing, towels, sheets, etc.
Forced 18 countries to accept "voluntary restraint agreements" to reduce their steel exports to the United States, causing price hikes and loss of customers to Caterpillar, GM, and other steel users.
Placed a 100-percent tariff on certain electronic products to retaliate against Japan for "dumping" computer memory chips; then forced Japan to control the price of chips.
Imposed a 45-percent duty on Japanese motorcycles for the benefit of Harley Davidson.
Made Japan force its automakers to buy more American made parts.
Demanded that Taiwan, West Germany, Japan and Switzerland restrain their exports of machine tools.
Redefined "dumping" so domestic firms can more easily charge foreign competitors with unfair trade practices.
This is only a small fraction of the intricate web of restrictions which makes the U.S. one of the most unfree trading countries in the world. When Ronald Reagan took office, 25 percent of our imports had some kind of restriction; when he left, this figure had climbed to 40 percent. In line with his predecessor, George Bush has continued and expanded the whole panoply of government controls- tariffs, quotas, subsidies, "voluntary" restraints, anti-dumping, retaliation, et al. With "free traders" like these two Republican presidents, who needs Lane Kirkland?
Bullying Japan
George Bush has added a few anti-free trade techniques of his own, using his muscle to threaten and coerce our trading partners into submitting to his will. For instance, although we have been sold an image of Japan as an economic powerhouse which has the U.S. over a barrel, the truth is just the opposite. George Bush's bullying of the Japanese is astounding. To mention only a few of his latest strong-arm tactics, after forcing Japan to budget $3.12 trillion for public works during the 1990s, he then threatened trade sanctions unless Japan drops barriers against U.S. construction companies trying to snare these Japanese construction jobs. Japan, in turn, threatened to suspend the 1988 Major Projects Agreement, which forced that country to give U.S. construction contractors such as Bechtel Group, Morrison-Knudsen International, and Austin Co. more than $400 million in Japanese business. George Bush also twisted Japanese arms to get a new semiconductor accord which will allocate 20 percent of the Japanese semiconductor market to "foreign" (i.e., U.S.) companies by 1992. "Progress in other areas" includes long-term contracts forcing Japanese manufacturers to design "foreign" chips into their video cassette recorders, computers, and other products so that 20 percent of market "share" is foreign by 1992. Nor does George Bush like the control Japanese auto companies have over Japanese auto dealers; this must be broken up because it "hinders U.S. efforts to build up sales networks in Japan." One of the latest developments is that Japan has now "agreed" to provide an "initial" $1 billion to. help finance exports of American goods and services to Japan in order to "ease trade frictions with Washington." Can anyone imagine Japan coming here and making demands like these? This sounds more like the U.S. taking over Japan, rather than vice versa. Most extraordinary of all are the steps George Bush is taking under the aegis of a fraud called the Structural Impediments Initiative (SII). A Bush idea, this initiative supposedly is a U.S./Japanese mechanism through which each can request relief from the other's internal business or governmental structures which hinder free trade. Incredibly, this could hypothetically open the door to Japanese meddling in our internal affairs. The reality, however, is just the other way around, for, as George Bush well knows, the two sides are anything but equal. George Bush is in a position of supreme strength, not only because the Japanese economy is only 40 percent that of the U.S., but also because Japan's wealth was intentionally "Made in the U.S.A." through the U.S. policy of artificially devaluing the dollar with relation to the yen.
Call It Blackmail
In addition, the U.S. is Japan's number one market; without U.S. purchases and the continued cheap dollar, the "Japanese miracle" would disappear. Thus George Bush is well able to use SII to tackle even keiretsu, the deep-rooted Japanese exclusionary business practices of interlocking corporate groups. Calling for tougher anti-monopoly enforcement and stiffer penalties to deter collusive business practices, President Bush has demanded that Japan's parliament punish practices that discriminate against non-keiretsu companies (i.e., U.S.). "Unless such behavior is checked," threatened one U.S. official quoted in the May 23rd Wall Street Journal "Japanese investment opportunities abroad could be severely undermined." No matter what opinion one might have of keiretsu, what George Bush is practicing. is not free trade, but something which should be called extortion and blackmail. His actions become even more repugnant when one learns that the public has been sold a bill of goods concerning Japan's "closed markets." This is simply untrue. Japan is the second largest purchaser of U.S. goods in the world (more than Britain, France, and West Germany combined). About 50,000 U.S. products are sold in Japan. Japan's average tariff rate is 36 percent lower than the average for the same industries in the United States. Its agricultural tariffs are also low, which explains why Japan continues to be the largest net importer of agricultural produce in the world, and why it ranks as the largest foreign market for American limes, lemons, grapefruit, grain sorghum, beef, pork, and chicken, and the second largest for soybeans and wheat. Japan's quotas and other barriers are less restrictive than those of the U.S. or of the European Common Market. So much for Mr. Bush's complaints about Japan's "closed markets." Backed by the enormous power of the unparalleled U.S. economy, Mr. Bush is throwing his weight around the rest of the world as well, from demanding that the European Community accept U.S. television programs and modes to calling for reprisals against Norway for having excluded U.S. suppliers from bidding on its electronic tollbooth system. This kind of coercion is what now passes for today's definition of "opening markets" under the international trade laws set up by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
New Protectionism
What exactly is GATT? GATT is an international commercial treaty with 108 member nations representing more than four-fifths of international trade. Although its founding purpose in 1948 supposedly was to enforce free trade (an appalling oxymoron if there ever was one), the question today is, "What free trade?" For although certain tariffs have been reduced, GATT has given rise to a new protectionism based on a whole new set of non-tariff barriers, far offsetting the few improvements it has made. In fact, the percentage of trade affected by non-tariff barriers has steadily increased since the rounding of GATT. It could not have been otherwise, for much of the new protectionism originated with and has been legalized by GATT itself. For instance, GATT regulations on health, environmental or consumer protection are often used to entirely close domestic markets to foreign products, while anti-dumping duties and a host of new tariff and non-tariff barriers against government-subsidized goods protect domestic producers at the expense of consumers. Import quotas and export restraints are the most important and disruptive type of non-tariff barriers, such as sugar quotas in the U.S. and "voluntary" export restraint agreements on steel, electronics, autos, textiles and clothing. In 1988, 261 export restraints were in effect, covering ten percent of world trade, with the trend headed upward. In fact, trade affected by nontariff barriers has almost doubled in the last 20 years, including 56 percent of iron and steel, 90 percent of food, and 21 percent of undeveloped countries' exports to developed countries.
Global Approach to Trade
If GATT hardly fits its rhetorical free trade image, what are we to make of it? Why is George Bush, like his predecessors, strongly supporting it? We begin to get a clue when we learn that GATT's multilateral trade negotiations are based on the idea that international trade arrangements require a global approach. Old-style bilateral agreements are now scorned as being too clumsy, slow, and inefficient. What is happening under GATT is that U.S. commercial law is being made by an international body, in spite of the fact that the Constitution gives Congress alone the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations." The procedure is as follows: In practice, GATT is ruled by a Council of Representatives of member states, which receives trade complaints made by one member state against another. The Council then appoints a panel of three independent "experts" who hold hearings, study the matter, and make a recommendation. These decisions, of which there have been over 100 in the past 42 years, have almost without exception been obeyed. As Samuel B. Pettengill, a former Democratic member of Congress from Indiana who testified against ratification of the GATT treaty in 1948, put it:
I am against GATT because it is part and parcel of international socialism, oneworldism, and the slow surrender of American sovereignty. Under bilateral negotiations, that is, our nation with one other nation, there was no possibility of being outvoted. The power to say yes or no remained securely in American hands. GATT, however, calls for a vast complex of multilateral negotiations with many nations in a sort of world super legislature where we have one vote .... Once wrapped up in this spiderweb, it will be difficult indeed to recapture any independence of action.
Can it be doubted that this was precisely the result intended by the framers of GATT? Their approach was purely statist in both language and philosophy, conveying the false idea that it is countries which trade rather than individuals, and that therefore governments must "manage" trade. The essence of GATT is that it thinks in terms of state action on a global scale, thus locking international trade into control by a world body. The foregoing information should convince even the most die-hard skeptic that George Bush is deceiving the public by calling his trade policies free trade. His North American Free Trade Agreement, like GATT, will be simply another instrument for controlling and managing trade. We know this already as a fact because the first half of the Agreement -- negotiated with Canada by Ronald Reagan -- makes a mockery of the word "free." Although it is true that the agreement would eliminate all tariffs on U.S.-Canadian trade within ten years, it should be noted that this particular barrier is minor, since 85 percent of Canada's exports to the U.S. and 70 percent of American exports to Canada are already exempt from tariffs. Many other barriers, such as import regulations and subsidies, are being left in place. Moreover, says Sheldon Richman, writing in the Free Market for March 1988,
American companies would still be able to ask the government for shelter from Canadian imports that "contribute importantly" to their "injury." This has nothing to do with "dumping" or other allegations of unfair conduct .... It relates instead purely to the effects of market competition. In other words, if a dynamic Canadian company "harms" an American industry by attracting consumers, the American business can run to the government for a duty or quota.
Obviously, this means that every American industry is protected against Canadian competition. The Canadian "free trade" agreement also imposes a 50-percent North American "rule of origin" requirement on parts of automobiles built in Canadian plants, or else suffer a 25-percent tariff. This is a blow to Japanese automakers, but especially to U.S. consumers, who will have to pay more for cars not sold by the Big Three. Honda is presently being cited for "ducking import duties by overstating the North American content of Canadian built cars." The Wall Street Journal for June 18, 1991 tells us that this "represents a tougher White House line on trade." What we are looking at here is cartelization and an attack on free trade, altogether the opposite of what George Bush is preaching.
Internationalist Acclaim
That George Bush's North American Free Trade Agreement is the brainchild of the CFR is beyond dispute. In addition to the important CFR congressional leaders already mentioned, the agreement is being pushed by CFR members Carla Hills, U.S. Trade Representative; Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor; Robert Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce; and Michael Boskin, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors. A favorable article by Ronald Reagan appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 24, 1991. Another article on the same date, "Why We Support Free Trade with Mexico," included seven CFR members among the signatories. A publication called International Economic Insights pushed the case in its March/April 1991 issue; the publisher and editor are CFR members. Its board of directors lists 19 CFR or Trilateral members out of a total of 26, including David Rockefeller, Alan Greenspan, George Shultz, Paul Volker, and Peter Peterson, chairman of the board of the CFR. Two former U.S. Trade Representatives, CFR members Robert Strauss and William Brock, met on the issue with President Bush in April. CFR member Harry Freeman, former American Express president, has been "lobbying furiously on behalf of a big business coalition that's pushing for the Agreement." There is no doubt who is behind this important move. There is also no doubt that the American public is being cunningly deceived in the same way Europeans were when the secret plan for the political consolidation of Western Europe was introduced in 1957 under the guise of free trade. Promised from the beginning that the European Economic Community and its Common Market meant only the elimination of trade barriers for the free flow of goods between nations, precisely as we are now being promised, Europeans have watched helplessly as their own leaders transferred first economic power, then political sovereignty to an all powerful central government in Brussels. Not only have Europeans been duped out of their sovereignty, but, not surprisingly, they have not gotten free trade, either, for this was never the intention. During the 1960s, Insider figures such as Jean Monnet, the French internationalist who is credited with being the principal architect of the European Community, was talking only about wiping out tariffs so that businessmen in the member nations could compete on an equal basis anywhere in the Common Market. In an interview with Look magazine, he stoutly defended free trade and a free market, saying that although "you hear much talk about the dire effects of lowering tariffs, usually what is at stake is the static attitude of management," which must change with the times. "Consumers must get the best, wherever it comes from," he said. "Competition is the most effective means we have for increasing efficiency and quality in production .... But tariffs restrict competition...."
Brussels Sprouts a Bureaucracy
If this sounds familiar, it is because this is the message we are hearing today from George Bush and his highly placed coterie of Cabinet-level Insiders. But the reality of the European Community today is quite the opposite of the picture drawn by Monnet. The internal tariffs are gone, as are many of the national trade regulations, but they have been replaced with a monolithic network of standards, fixed prices, subsidies, prohibitions, levies and grants centrally controlled by a powerful, supranational level of government in Brussels. Monnet's promise of the blessings of competition, has turned out to be a creel joke, for it is Brussels which permits, or doesn't permit, every move made by business and industry, even ordering closure if there are "too many in the field." State subsidies amounting to $115 billion a year throughout the 1980s with no change in sight protect favored companies and prevent others from coming into existence ($225 million annually for steel, $394 million for Air France, $1 billion for Belgian's Sabena, $20 billion for Airbus), while quotas and duties minimize foreign competition. Every domestic product which crosses those national "open" borders must be approved by the exploding bureaucracy entrenched in Brussels; these centralized controls are staggering in their complexity and extent. This, then, is the great new "free market" of the European Community. Once Europeans had been successfully deceived into supporting the Common Market with promises of the coming "free market prosperity" -- as we are being deceived now about "free trade" with Canada and Mexico -- the rest of the plan moved ahead rapidly. Economic integration, with a common currency and a central bank modeled on the U.S. Federal Reserve (i. e., privately owned and able to inflate), is just around the comer. So is EC taxing authority, with a start having been made with an EC-controlled Value Added Tax (VAT). Hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth distribution from the rich nations to the poor ones have already been handed out, making the EC a mega-socialist welfare state.
Conspirators Past and Present
But the trump card is European political union. Americans need to clearly understand that this has been the real objective all along. It could not have been otherwise, for those pulling the strings, from Jean Monnet all the way through to today's European Commission President Jacques Delors, have been socialist internationalists and Trilateralists bent on replacing "obsolete" national sovereignty with the elitists' new world order. Unbeknownst to the European people, not only were their own leaders such as Aristide Briand (socialist prime minister of France 11 times) selling them out to world government, but many Americans were sealing their fate as well. In fact, it is highly improbable that these European one-worlders could have been as successful as they were without the constant aid and close cooperation of Council on Foreign Relations members such as John Foster Dulles, John J. McCloy, Robert Murphy, Henry Luce, Senator William Fulbright, Sumner Wells, Dean Acheson, George F. Kennan, General George Marshall, Averell Harriman, and David Roekefeller, to name a few. Yesterday's conspirators have been replaced with today's President Francois Mitterand of France, Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans Genscher of Germany, European Commission President Jacques Delors (de facto president of Europe and a man so favored by the CFR that his photo appeared in a montage on the CFR's 1990 Annual Report), pivotal Commissioners Willy de Clerq and Karl-Heinz Narjes (members of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission) and President George Bush, the world's most powerful proponent of the new world order. With all the foregoing on the record, there is no mystery about what is happening in Europe. Although the fact that Europe's national governments are on the way out has been purposefully downplayed or even denied in the United States, Americans remain uninformed at their own peril. They need only turn to official EC literature itself:
The major innovative feature of the EC ... is that its members have ceded to it a part of their national sovereignty with the goal of forming a cohesive, indissoluble organizational and political integration. They have endowed it with sovereign powers of its own ... which it can exercise to have the force of international law .... Economic integration is not meant to be an end in itself but merely an intermediate stage on the road to political integration. [European Unification: The Origins and Growth of the European Community ( 1989)]
In late June of this year, member nations of the EC signed a new treaty which begins: "By this treaty, the high contracting parties institute among themselves a union." In other words, this is the "federalism," or single European government, which has been the goal of the one-worlders behind the EC for most of this century. The European people themselves have had nothing to say about this. In fact, they hardly understand what is happening, or what political union will mean to them, or why it is necessary, or if it will be better than what they already have. The treatymaking took place at the highest presidential level behind closed doors. The June 24, 1991 issue of the Wall Street Journal described the game plan:
The latest proposals for union surprised many foreign ministers and provoked resistance in Britain, and to a lesser extent, in Denmark and Portugal. As EC commission President Jacques Delors works to keep up the momentum toward European political integration, he has caught governments off guard... partly because he hasn't clearly communicated his vision of why Europe would benefit from a grand, federal structure that would oversee a common economic and foreign policy.
"From the Arctic to Patagonia"
Now it is our turn. As we have seen, George Bush has no more intention than his Trilateral allies in Europe of establishing free trade, which is anathema to all Insiders, who crave control. But free trade rhetoric is the perfect cover. What George Bush really intends to do is to first consolidate the northern portion of the western hemisphere, then add the southern. A Wall Street Journal editorial for November 29, 1990 put the cards on the table by speaking approvingly of the coming "American Community," North American "economic union," and "economic integration." Let us stress: An economic union is not at all the same thing as free trade. The Journal went further by comparing the integration of Eastern Europe into the European Community with the "integration of Mexico and the U. S." The Hudson Institute, in its "Briefing Paper" for April 8, 1991, says that the European experience can teach North Americans "how to integrate," and speaks of a North American Common Market. The handwriting is on the wall. George Bush has already spoken of a "hemispheric free trade zone stretching from Pt. Barrow in Alaska to the Straits of Magellan" at the southern tip of South America. CFR member Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) has chimed in with a "vision for the twenty-first century of a Common Market that would stretch from the Arctic to Patagonia." A recent poll in Mexico actually asked if Mexicans would be willing to form a single nation with the U.S. if it meant a higher standard of living (the bait); 59 percent said yes. The idea has been planted; expect it to surface in the U.S. soon under some other guise. It is hardly surprising to discover that regional consolidations like the one the U.S. is being sucked into are forming all over the world, preparatory to world merger. Although the European Community is the oldest and most fully developed, we now learn that it will be extended into a "vast new free trade area stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean," called the European Economic Area. Central America is in the process of being politically centralized with a Central American Parliament already elected. Farther south, the presidents of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay signed a treaty for a Common Market modeled on that of the European Community on March 27, 1991. Even Gorbachev has gotten into the act and proposed a Common Market in northeast Asia, saying he wants to "create a zone of prosperity around the Sea of Japan ... combining Japanese and South Korean cash, Chinese and North Korean manpower, and Soviet natural resources." In Africa, too, another five member Common Market has formed, centered in Morocco. These developing regional communities are being used to transfer powers from national governments to central authorities. They are stepping stones to regional government and then to world government. Although arguments for or against free trade continue, they are irrelevant, for none of what is happening means free trade. What the Insiders are after is controlled world trade as part of centralized economic, political and social planning with themselves in the driver's seat.
