Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 5 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

President Obama Won't Change NAFTA

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   3 comments
Become a Premium Member Would you like to know how many people have read this article? Or how reputable the author is? Simply sign up for a Advocate premium membership and you'll automatically see this data on every article. Plus a lot more, too.
Author 6649
Message Dana Gabriel

Barack Obama has all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination, with only the formalities of the convention remaining. There is a good chance that he will become the next president of the United States. For all his talk of change, it appears that in areas of trade, economics, foreign and monetary policy, things for the most part will remain status quo. During the grueling nomination battle, both the Obama and Clinton camps were highly critical of NAFTA and accused the other of changing their position on the trade agreement. What is really worrisome is that you don’t hear Obama, or McCain for that matter, talking about preserving the constitution or protecting American sovereignty. The reality is that NAFTA will remain intact, and the push towards a North American Union and global governance will continue.

Obama has promised that one of his first orders of business as president will be to call upon the leaders of Canada and Mexico to renegotiate stronger labor and environmental provisions into NAFTA. Both he and Clinton were specific about using the six-month opt-out clause in order to put pressure for changes to be made. It appears as if Obama has backed himself into a corner. With all this talk about renegotiating NAFTA, the U.S. ambassador to Canada , David Wilkins, has said that NAFTA is too important to do away with or make any drastic changes to. He pointed to the fact that regardless who wins the American presidential election, NAFTA will stand.

With the sharp tone of language directed towards NAFTA, some Canadian government officials became concerned. It was reported that the Obama campaign contacted Canadian officials to set the record straight and told them not to take the criticism seriously. They also received warnings that Obama would be further speaking out against the agreement. Does this mean that all this tough talk regarding NAFTA was nothing more than political positioning and rhetoric? It’s not just Obama as Clinton tried to court working-class voters in the industrial Midwest, where NAFTA has hit the hardest by also telling the people what they wanted to hear.

For years, both the Democrats and Republicans have been double teaming the American people. One gets in power and further advances the New World Order agenda, and then falls out of favor and passes the baton to the other. In Canada , it was the Liberal party who spearheaded the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) initiative, and with the Conservatives now in power, deeper integration has continued. It will be the same with the Democrats, who will further push for a North American Union, and this will not include dismantling NAFTA. Just like the Republicans, the Democrats are run by special interest groups and corporate powers that are pushing globalization and world government. With Obama in office, I am afraid that many on the left will go to sleep because their man and party will be in power. He doesn’t have the political baggage of a McCain or Clinton, and this makes him an even more useful tool of the elite.

In a recent article from, there are suggestions on what Obama should do as president. It included using the European Union as an example for economic and political integration. It talked about, “A functioning American Union that pools sovereignty.” It went on to say that this would not be possible by tearing down NAFTA. Much of the economic integration has already been achieved through NAFTA, and the SPP is continuing this process, further laying the foundation for a North American Union.

It is doubtful that the Democrats and President Obama will follow through on promises to fix NAFTA. It is so badly flawed, and a trade agreement that puts the interests of the people ahead of those of multinational corporations is what is needed. With all his talk on NAFTA, Obama has been silent on the SPP and the North American Union agenda. If there are no intentions of abandoning NAFTA, then it appears as if Obama’s change will be more of what we’ve come to expect from our politicians. With the next phase of the presidential campaign underway, I hope that this is not the last we’ve seen of NAFTA as an election issue.


Rate It | View Ratings

Dana Gabriel Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues.
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Pretext for a North American Homeland Security Perimeter

Setting The Stage For a North American Union Currency

Disarming of the Population and the Tyranny of Gun Control

Farmers Call For NAFTA Reforms

Fake News and Propaganda: Shaping Our Reality

NAFTA Countries to Introduce Simultaneous Legislation to Stop SPP

To View Comments or Join the Conversation: