International Economic Law and Policy Blog

An "American Union"

Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post has this suggestion for Barack Obama:

Here's one example of new thinking he should pursue: The United States should apply to relations with hemispheric neighbors many of the lessons of the European Union and its half-century of economic and political integration. A functioning American Union that pools sovereignty is a goal worth introducing now.

Putting policy aside, and focusing on politics, I beg to differ on this one.  In fact, here's some unsolicited advice for Obama:  do not ever use the terms "American Union" or "pooling sovereignty" during your campaign or afterwards!

"Why not a North American Union?"

Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute asks this question and argues:

There are some who believe a grave threat to American sovereignty looms over the horizon. A shadowy cabal, they say, is planning a massive "NAFTA superhighway," a new North American currency, and a common market in goods and labor. It will all culminate in an E.U.-like North American Union.

It turns out this is mostly fantasy. But the fantasy is more dream than nightmare. Because some aspects of a North American Union would leave Americans and our neighbors both richer and freer.

The population of undocumented migrants in the U.S. has grown rapidly in recent decades -- in part because we have implemented increasingly restrictive border policies. What we've done is make passage riskier. This has slowed in-migration. But those who do come now are more likely to stay. And this has increased the permanent population of undocumented Mexicans.

The best solution to America's immigration problem is not a wall or a new crackdown on the hiring of undocumented workers. It's NAFTA's unfinished business: a common North American labor market. It's illogical and impractical to create a single North American economy that integrates markets for goods, capital, raw materials, services, and information but tries to keep labor markets divided.

Ron Paul is not going to like this.

Phyllis Schlafly on the Gambling Ruling and the WTO

Yes, that's right, I said Phyllis Schlafly. She has read a bit and even quotes from the Gambling decision and also Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. Her main point seems to be that it's outrageous for the WTO to have authorized Antigua to "pirate" U.S. intellectual property.  I'm not sure she's aware the rules explicitly provide for this.  Thus, it's not clear if she's upset by the Arbitrator's decision or the rules themselves.

There was also this:

How is a foreign tribunal in Geneva able to put the United States in such a box? It's because the internationalist free-trade lobby cooked up a sleazy deal to force the World Trade Organization on Americans in 1994 during the week after Thanksgiving, when Americans were preoccupied with Christmas shopping and festivities.

Americans sure are easily distracted!

Her more general point about the WTO is the following:

The World Trade Organization is a direct attack on U.S. sovereignty because it claims it can force any nation to change its laws to comply with World Trade Organization rulings. Article XVI, paragraph 4, states: "Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations, and administrative procedures with its obligations." The World Trade Organization has the final say about whether U.S. laws meet World Trade Organization requirements.

In this presidential season, the World Trade Organization should make easy target practice for any candidate to speak up and defend U.S. sovereignty against globalists who, under the mantra of "free trade," willingly allow the World Trade Organization to say which laws the U.S. may or may not adopt.

While the majority of trade skeptics are on the left, this is a good illustration of trade skepticism from the right.

I can't figure out what her position on "free trade" is, though. She says: "The World Trade Organization is not 'free trade' at all, but is a supra-national body in Geneva that sets, manages and enforces World Trade Organization-made rules to govern global trade." But would she support "free trade" outside the context of trade agreements, like Ron Paul would? I don't see an answer in this piece.