Two decades ago, Ralph Nader wrote to one hundred
American companies asking them to pledge allegiance to the United States before
every stockholder meeting, since all of them accepted federal government
subsidies and tax breaks. Only one
company responded favorably. All others dismissed
or jeered at his request.
Business interests see themselves as
transnationalist. They have no
allegiance to the United States. The
U.S. Chamber of Commerce exemplifies this ideology. They have a history of siding with our
enemies. Some would say they’re in league
with countries that wish to do us harm.
An Iranian news agency reported the Chamber and several other business
groups were secretly conspiring to undermine U.S. policy by torpedoing economic
sanctions. The U.S. Chamber denied these
allegations of course. However, the end
result is working out in their favor.
We must ask ourselves, why is it that republican senators
would pass a law that would circumvent the treaty processes in the U.S.
Constitution? Who in their right mind
would allow Barack Obama a free hand in negotiating with our enemies by giving
him the authority to veto the Senate’s rejection of his so-called “executive
agreement” with Iran? We don’t have to
look any farther than the U.S Chamber of Commerce.
We can also surmise that the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce is behind Barack Obama’s reestablishment of diplomatic relations with
Cuba, and eventual lifting of the trade embargo . Here is an excerpt from one of their press
releases:
Over the past 30 years, some
sanctions legislation has imposed restrictions on commercial activity in an
extraterritorial fashion that incites economic, diplomatic, and legal conflicts
with our allies. In the past, U.S. laws imposing restrictions on the activities
of European subsidiaries of U.S. multinationals have met with intense
resistance from European governments. While the United States eventually lifted
the restrictions, the damage to its foreign policy goals had been done.
Not only do such moves
undermine efforts to build a consensus for multilateral action, they make the
United States more vulnerable to international commercial complaints. They can
also damage U.S. leadership by greatly expanding the universe of entities subject
to countersanctions to include insurers, creditors, and foreign subsidiaries.
There is no better example of
the ineffectiveness of U.S. unilateral sanctions than Washington's policy
toward Cuba. Implemented in October 1960 to pressure Fidel Castro to
democratize, the Cuban embargo arguably has helped prop up the current regime.
No one seriously argues that the Cuban dictatorship could have withstood five
decades of free trade, free markets, and free enterprise, powered by its own
entrepreneurial citizens.
While the current isolation of
Cuba has far outlasted its original purpose, U.S. policies impose real costs. A
March 2010 study by Texas A&M University indicates that easing restrictions
on agricultural exports and lifting the travel ban could result in up to $365
million in additional sales of U.S. goods and create 6,000 new jobs in the
United States.
A comprehensive review of U.S.
unilateral economic sanctions is overdue. From the five-decade old embargo on
Cuba to proposals for extraterritorial sanctions on other countries, unilateral
sanctions bring a host of unintended and unhelpful consequences. It's time to
put an end to these damaging policies.
Of course, we’re
expected to believe Cuba will unleash their entrepreneurial spirit with this
wave of U.S. commerce when in reality only the Castro regime will profit off of
this infusion of cash. We can also expect
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to pick the pockets of taxpayers to fund their dictatorial
ventures.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment