Nationalism and trade have always historically existed. Nation states retain their sovereignty in the globe, but they import/export goods with other nations. Unless you want to be North Korea, trading is essential to your economy.
So what about these regional trade agreements? Do they sacrifice a nation's sovereignty, or do they simply outline an agreement for making trade possible?
For example, the USMC agreement. Does it contain any rules that sacrifice our ability to govern our own nation, and lay any foundation for globalism? Or is the trade agreement necessary in order to make trade possible?
There seems to be a narrow line between trade agreements and globalist policies. It seems NAFTA was an abuse of a so-called "trade agreement" in order to enrich certain groups of globalist wealthy elite at the expense of America. Whereas the USMC seems to be an agreement aimed at the profit of America and ordinary Americans, and therefore more nationalistic.
What are your thoughts?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] WORF_MOTORBOATS_TROI 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
They aren't inherently antithetical to nationalism, but they can seem that way sometimes because globalists use treaties to try and push their agenda without having it be subjected to the scrutiny of voters. Just look at how they turned the european trade agreements in the tyrannical and antidemoocratic European Union. When EU treaties were put to a popular vote and rejected, the globalists backdoored the treaties into law anyway.