NATIVE INTELLIGENCE

A Column By

Jack D. Forbes

Native American Studies

University of California, Davis

Focus: Illegal NAFTA To Be Expanded

The U.S. Constitution requires that, to be adopted, any treaty must obtain a 2/3 affirmative vote in the U.S. Senate. That means that NAFTA had to get 67 votes when it came up for approval. But NAFTA got only 61! And Clinton wants to expand this still unratified treaty by the same unconstitutional method!

According to the dictionary, an "agreement" or contract between sovereign states is always a treaty. International agreements which require the approval of Congress are "treaties." NAFTA was treated illegally as an ordinary act of legislation in order to ram it through. (See Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.) Mexico treated it correctly as a treaty and it was duly ratified by the Mexican Senate. Why not by the U.S. Senate?

NAFTA allows Canada and Mexico and their business interests, as well as U.S. corporations, to challenge any U.S. laws, codes or regulations adopted by any state, tribe or local government if it is believed that such laws or regulations interfere with investing or with the sale of services or products by any Canadian or Mexican firms, or subsidiaries of U.S. firms.

Who will make the final decisions in these challenges? Not our own tribal courts or our state courts. A Free Trade Commission and various committees appointed by the three central governments (and very probably representing corporate interests) will make the decisions. Thus people never elected to any office have the final say.

Thus NAFTA is actually an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as a treaty). It will change our system of government by eventually eliminating much of what is left of "states' rights" and by blocking tribal governments in their march towards sovereignty.

Bill Clinton took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, as do U.S. senators, and all are bound by its provisions. Of course, Clinton's people claim that NAFTA is simply an "agreement" and not a treaty, but that is just semantic trickery. A formal, enforceable agreement between sovereign states (nations) is a treaty. That's what the word treaty means. You can call such an agreement a "declaration," a "convention," or whatever you want, but if it is a formal agreement between sovereigns it is always a treaty and the U.S. Constitution requires a 2/3 vote for ratification. Sixty-seven votes, not 61!

The genocide treaty was called the "Genocide Convention," but it required a 2/3 vote in the Senate to pass.

We know that ex-President George Bush and his negotiators designed NAFTA to be a treaty because NAFTA purports to be able to nullify the laws of the United States, of the fifty states, and of tribes and local governments if they conflict with the provisions of NAFTA. This means that NAFTA is supposed to be a part of U.S. law, part of the "supreme law of the land."

But according to the U.S. Constitution, only a treaty ratified by a yes vote of 2/3 of the U.S. Senate can become part of U.S. law. A so-called non-treaty "agreement," whatever that might be, can have no legal force within the United States.

The House and Senate, by simple majority vote, cannot pass a law which nullifies state and local laws and ordinances, except in certain subject areas where the Constitution grants the federal government supremacy (as in foreign affairs, defense, and the like). Thus NAFTA as a simple law of the Senate and House cannot legally achieve its objectives. Only as a treaty ratified by 2/3 of the senators with a yes vote can NAFTA achieve its objectives of nullifying our federal system of government.

And now Clinton wants to expand NAFTA to South America, beginning with a Chile still dominated by the military and still oppressing Native People.

Obviously some organization, state government, city, tribe or a combination of the above must go into court to have NAFTA declared inoperative, to obtain a writ against its being enforced or enlarged. Organized labor could take the lead, but state, provincial, local and tribal governments should be equally concerned about the threatened loss of the powers of self-government posed by NAFTA.

One objective might well be to force the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments to agree to a renegotiation of NAFTA in which all international agreements relating to the rights of indigenous peoples, women, children, ethnic minorities and labor can be incorporated into the treaty. Moreover, one might wish to demand that any new NAFTA be accompanied by a Pan American Parliament with elected delegates, including representation for tribes and indigenous communities.

After all, NAFTA is supposed to be patterned after the European Economic Community, but the EEC also has the European Parliament. NAFTA is now to be run by people who are not elected but simply appointed. That is a big step towards "dictatorship by bureaucrats"!

Clinton is getting ready to try to further damage our workers, farmers, and citizens by allowing goods from undemocratic countries to flow in at cheap prices, prices which result from the murder of labor union and indigenous leaders, the dominance of extremely corrupt military cliques, and the raw exploitation of women and children sweatshop workers and other workers of both sexes and all ages.

NAFTA means "Nasty Attack From The Affluent." Let's fight back!

[Professor Jack D. Forbes, Powhatan-Delaware, is the author of COLUMBUS AND OTHER CANNIBALS, RED BLOOD, AFRICANS AND NATIVE AMERICANS and other books.]

All Rights Reserved by Jack D. Forbes

Phone: (916) 752-3626/3237

Fax: (916) 752-7097