The Problem with International Organizations like the EU and the WTO

Exclusive Interviews, Videos

The Problem with International Organizations like the EU and the WTO

/script type=”text/javascript” data-src=”https://app.getresponse.com/view_webform_v2.js?u=S6bT5&webforms_id=A25R”>

 

Summary

International organizations like the EU and WTO are criticized for undermining true free trade, local governance, and individual freedoms, serving elite interests instead of the public good, and are seen as needing abolition or significant reform.

 

International Organizations and Trade

The EU and WTO are government-managed trade systems, not true free trade agreements, involving tariffs, quotas, subsidies, and labor regulations.

EU’s agricultural subsidies serve political purposes, such as alienating farmers as a voting block, highlighting the carve-outs and exceptions in multilateral deals.

The WTO’s evolution from the 1948 GATT to its 1995 rebirth aimed to facilitate trade cooperation, but its hundreds of pages of regulations reveal it’s not a free trade agreement.

Power Dynamics and Centralization

International organizations like the EU and WTO are designed to serve the interests of government elites, centralizing power rather than advancing peace or freedom.

The EU’s goal is to create a centralized “United States of Europe”, using successive waves of crisis to centralize power and create a single, unified state.

The EU employs coercion and manipulation to keep member states in line, including dangling money bags and declaring opposition parties unconstitutional.

Critique of International Bodies

The UN’s lack of enforcement mechanisms and elitist nature make it an organization for statists’ elites, not a participatory democratic body.

NATO’s record of supporting US wars in Libya and Serbia does not demonstrate a credit-worthy impact on peace, as it’s seen as “picking on small countries”.

Economic Perspectives

The Austrian School of economics advocates for an anarcho-capitalist vision of society, where individuals are free from government interference.

The concept of subsidiarity is ineffective in maintaining decentralization, as it allows for the manipulation of what is considered “practical” to higher levels of government.