North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The 1945 UNITED STATES-UNITED KINGDOM INCOME TAX CONVENTION 1945, IRS London England.
It is not by chance, that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 1945, and the building of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 1945 begun in the same time frame, the Convention was only printed in a few news papers, and 1 or 2 Congressional Records displayed. Just like Obamacare, they made the documents so long, people gave up on reading it, and trusted in political parties, to represent them. All of this was tied into Anonymous Hits Federal Reserve in Hack Attack: Dump File Exposed NA..., no personal information was shared other then every Central World Banker in the World Banking Scam dubbed EU , and money transfers between companies, and their investment goals within the Federal Reserve. Its really a fantastic political agenda, gosh, just think, I could be rich by now...Na !!! not my style.
UNITED STATES-UNITED KINGDOM INCOME TAX CONVENTION 1945, IRS London England.
All the following documents are found & released in public domain, as a educational period, of American History at its best.
I am not going to post 1600 or so NAFTA docs, please...I would be old and tired by then, only 20 for now, then federal reserve banking document, that were released as public domain cc share alike educational records, that were forced into exposure by the freedom of information act. The some nasty little NATO document.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to NAFTA,:
What is NATO and NAFTA? NATO - National Atlantic Treaty Organization This is an alliance of countries.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a cornerstone of transatlantic security during the Cold War, has significantly recast its role in the past twenty years. Founded in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet aggression, NATO has evolved to confront threats ranging from piracy off the Horn of Africa to maritime security in the Mediterranean. But Russian actions in recent years, particularly its 2014 intervention in Ukraine, have refocused the alliance's attention on the continent. Recent developments have also exposed unresolved tensions over NATO's expansion into the former Soviet sphere.
Demetri Kantarelis firstname.lastname@example.org, an Associate Professor of Economics, Department of Economics and Global Studies at Assumption College, completed the research for this paper during the 1997-98 academic year while the author was visiting the Department of Future Conflict Studies at the Air War College/Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama.
There was a great deal of debate on whether or not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should continue existing after the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union and the earlier dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. From 1991 to 1995, the NATO Alliance was perceived by some as missionless and less able to influence events as it became leaner and weaker.
After 1991 the immediate NATO responses to the changed circumstances it faced were: (1) a reduction in the number of commands from three to two, (2) the replacement of large standing forces by multinational rapid reaction forces, and (3) a reduction in the headquarters staff by more than one third, resulting in a staff composition with greater European presence and less U.S. personnel than before. But NATO's destiny was to be rewritten. By itself alone, the Bosnia crisis proved wrong those who declared the Alliance missionless. The Dayton Accords and NATO's effective involvement in the Bosnia conflict helped remind us of the true mission of the Alliance, a mission that was there all along. As the 1997 NDU/INSS Strategic Assessment states:
"The 1949 Washington Treaty establishing NATO signifies common principles of democracy, liberty, and the rule of law. Neither the ideological threat of communism nor the Soviet Union are mentioned. The concept of Europe is not defined in the Treaty as West or East. NATO's success during its first forty years should be judged as much on what it helped create - a prosperous West Europe, whole and free - as what it stopped: an expansionist and hostile ideology. Whatever steps NATO now takes throughout the rest of Europe to promote wider peace and security are in consonance with the original Treaty." 
Although the above quotation reminds us what NATO's real mission is, the end of the cold war brought with it many new and more difficult challenges. These challenges are potentially less lethal, but are still very dangerous and extremely complex. Logically, the Alliance has to adapt and evolve and, as it does so, remain focused on its mission. We have to keep studying its dynamic threat environments and how we can best prepare to deal with them.
Discussed in the remainder of this paper are NATO's mission (Section II); threats to it (Section III); some principles of alliance theory that may be useful in guiding NATO in its new path of dynamic evolution (Section IV); and a conclusion (Section V).
II. NATO's Mission
NATO's mission, as one may redefine it today, is to protect the interdependent economies of West/Central Europe and North America from internal, peripheral, and external peace-disturbing crises. Undoubtedly, this is a mission in consonance with the original 1948 treaty.
It is not difficult to see the similarities between "1949" and "1998". Just askyourself: what were and still are NATO's enemies then and now? Here is Lord Ismay’s 1948 quip that may be helpful: "… keep the Germans down, the Russians out, and the Americans in…". At that time keeping the "Germans down" meant keeping "fascism down"; "Russians out" meant "communism out"; and "Americans in" meant "freedom, democracy, prosperity, and stability in".
As the leader of the West, during this century the U.S. successfully fought wars against fascism and communism, proving that such anachronistic systems cannot sustain themselves and that they are not conducive to peace and prosperity. It was indeed a defining and fruitful victory, a victory that has been welcomed by Germans, Japanese, Central Europeans, Asians and many more. For more than fifty years now, ex-Axis countries have been demonstrating that they understand the values of peace, democracy, stability, and prosperity. Similarly, since 1991, "majority" Russia appears determined to try the best approach, the approach based on the rules of democracy and free markets.
But there is also "minority" Russia which asks: "Why NATO? Why NATO enlargement? What for?" Unfortunately, some Russians claim that the West has difficulty learning from recent history, and as a result history will repeat itself. NATO's existence and, even more gravely, NATO's enlargement, they say, is evidence that the West is preparing another invasion against mother Russia, exactly as the West did in recent past under German or French alliances. Needless to say, those few Russians ought not be afraid. They, like the rest of the world today, should see instability, extreme nationalism, and the potential resurgence of anachronistic systems as the enemy common to all, and, given recent history, especially to Europeans and Russians. An evolving NATO should not be feared by Russia or any other country. It and they face the same threats.
Flow Chart 1 (above) points out that the evolution paths of NATO, Russia, Central, and East Europe meet today in the area of a common mission. Undoubtedly, as NATO has been demonstrating for fifty years, its intention is to serve as a preventive medicine against potential instability which is undesired, not only by member states, but also by peripheral as well as external neighbors.
NATO serves as a quasi-public good for its members and as a pure public good for its non-members. It is non-exclusive in the protection it provides regardless of how much each member contributes. Simultaneously, it enables its peripheral and external neighbors (e.g. Switzerland, Austria, Sweden and even France) to free ride under its protective umbrella. With such protection, extremists or anachronisms in either member or non-member nations have less potential support for a rise to power. The obvious example is the non-member nations of Bosnia and its immediate land neighbors in conjunction with recent/current events there: NATO's successful intervention not only restored order in the area, but it also prevented the outbreak of potential instability to its members, Russia's "near abroad," and possibly the entire world. The evidence clearly demonstrates that the evolving NATO should not be feared by Russia or any other nation. Instead, it should be embraced, welcomed and, if possible, assisted in the pursuit of its mission.
Naturally, one may ask: why should NATO be maintained and assisted as it pursues its new mission? The answer is easy: because it serves as a creator and protector of prosperity. It has done so during its first fifty years -- just compare West Europe’s prosperity and security levels from 1945 to 1998 to those previously achieved -- and it will be necessary in order to continue doing so in the future.
The necessity of the continuation of its new mission depends on two factors: (1) high economic interdependence between Europe (European Union – EU) and North America (North America Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA), and (2) globalization of economic activity. EU and NAFTA get richer not only from their economic interaction, but also from their interaction with the rest of the world. Thus, both factors contribute to EU’s and NAFTA’s increasing wealth levels and ever rising share of the global economic pie. Undeniably, it is not only a prosperity path that Europe and North America desire to continue following, but a path that they would like to share, under win/win conditions, with the rest of the world, especially Russia.
According to a UN report , out of the top 100 transnational corporations ranked by foreign assets in 1995, 78 originated from the EU/NAFTA regions, with the U.S. leading the per-country tally (30) followed by the U.K. (11), France (11) and Germany (9).
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I'll try to make this simple... too, condense years of college, history and economics, as I recall them into a short treaties on Trade and Security ...
1) The GATT treaties originally started in 1948 ... these treaties (more than one) established General rules for trade, tariffs, and TAXES on foreign corporations, that are payable on income earned inside member states. GATT agreements exists today for nearly every nation in the world and are the principal means by which trade, tariffs and TAXES on foreign corporations are negotiated and paid. There is nothing wrong with the principal however the DEVIL is in the application.
2) The WTO, IMF and World Bank thru various treaties and compacts basically establish the system by which commercial exchanges for trade are paid/handled... the exchange rates for currency and a system transfer such currency. They also serve as the worlds primary LENDING agencies for underdeveloped nations...extending credit to the third world and monitoring the debt held by all member states as part of their currency evaluation systems. These organizations are the worlds central banking system... and serve some of the functions of the federal reserve when it comes too establishing rules for equity in member banks... those institutions dealing directly with these organizations. They hold great sway on the solvency of a nations currency whether we like it or not.
3) Finally, pure Trade Agreements such as NAFTA, CETA and CAFTA operate similar to GATT ... but are more specific in their regulatory powers and rules regarding trade... including, such things as rules regarding dumping, unfavorable taxation of member goods, and the internal support governments give to various sectors of their economies as they try to provide an advantage to their national institutions of commerce.
All of these things are not draconian in themselves... however, the application of these institutions and agreements can have devastating effects on ones economy and eventually that nations security if they are not FAIR... and most of these agreements are seriously flawed.. and are in fact unfair... catering to special interests and a PLUTOCRACY of the wealthy... this must change as TRUMP Says the SYSTEM IS RIGGED.
Finally, all of these things are working together to destroy individual sovereignty and too establish a NEW WORLD ORDER... a one world government with a common economy forged by all these treaties and financial agreements. The whole world is being drawn into a One World Government, economy and single currency.... with universal citizenship for all people's. Nationalism will be struck down... and the COLLECTIVE... SUPRASTATE will become the new paradigm. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstate
So, more information overload... what does NATO have to do with NAFTA? Not much. Albeit all military operations are ultimately politically driven and have as their primary goal economic and physical security.
It should be noted that MILITARY POWER serves the interest of POLITICAL LEADERSHIP... Hence, NATO, is focused primarily on the use of military power to support governments which promote economic and political stability. There is always a political and economic element in the overall STRATERIC application of military power.
That is why organizations like the (OSCE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_for_Security_and_Co-oper... are created. These civilian government agencies routinely coordinate with military organizations such as NATO in developing plans for economic security... in this case for Europe ... it is also why NATO's G-8... Chief of Staff for programs, engages in planning seminars with OSCE, as they work together to 'combat' poverty, NATO may well expend funds for 'propaganda' and 'psychological' warfare/conditioning, that is focused on alleviating poverty and poor economic conditions before they create war or civil unrest.
Don't read into NATO's G-8, the Deputy Chief of Staff for programs... getting involved in planning some sort of economic event, the military routinely address economic security ... all war is aimed at securing economic and political security... as its inherent purpose. However, they do so within a very narrow framework... they don't normally deal with TRADE... treaties, policy or management.
What does NATO have to do with NAFTA, "The UK is basically is the founders of both in Treaties of Nations", Germany on the other hand has different ideas, thats why the UK and Trump pulled out. TPP is not dead, Germany wants to build it for their own little economic structure to challenge Trump.
NATO, was to be a peace keeping force, a way for peace talks. The United Nations which is now under the control of basically Germany, some wanted to build NATO as a foundation for a War Machine. The UN and NATO wanted to by pass Congress and state tey no longer need Congress to bring the United States Military into a war.
You do know that the United Nations rebuilt the Tower Of Babel, and even announced it on a sign on their building, The Tower Of Babel is in Islam. But I do know this is just our Christian opinions against the UN.
I beg to differ...
1) NATO is in fact a force for peace... it is a defensive treaty ... not an offensive pact to expand Europe or the US. NATO's It's obligations to the UN extend only too the members responsibility to abide by the UN protocols for peace and the use of the body as a negotiating platform for settling international disputes. It is not an armed body for use by the UN. See:http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
2) Germany is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council and hence they control nothing in the UN... It is the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council who have VETO power over any UN action. Hence the power inherent to the UN lies with those in the Security Council and specifically with those able to VETO any UN activity before the council.
Things change Ronald....
You can post all the links you want, we have documents, that state different, because they are classified, Dee and Steve will not allow them to be seen here. And we have a very interest book. And the second photo of the UN Build, why did the UN name their building after the Tower Of Babel. Your a Christian right, so why did they mock God ?
Some of the doc's you indicate as references have been released under standard DECLASSIFICATION process...
"Executive Order 13526 establishes the mechanisms for most declassifications, within the laws passed by Congress. The originating agency assigns a declassification date, by default 10 years. After 25 years declassification review is automatic, with nine narrow exceptions that allow information to continue to be classified. At 50 years there are two exceptions, and classifications beyond 75 years require special permission. Because of changes in policy and circumstances, agencies are expected to actively review documents that have been classified for fewer than 25 years. They must also respond to Mandatory Declassification Review and Freedom of Information Act requests. The National Archives and Records Administration houses the National Declassification Center to coordinate reviews and Information Security Oversight Office to promulgate rules and enforce quality measures across all agencies. NARA reviews documents on behalf of defunct agencies and permanently stores declassified documents for public inspection. The Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel has representatives from several agencies."
Some of the documents you have posted were classified at one time but under the law have been declassified... So, I would be interested in knowing which documents you have were obtained without going thru the lawful declassification process... if any?
I have noticed that your interpretation of some of the documents you have is erroneous or incomplete... I have worked with NATO and am familiar with its procedures and policies... at least up thru my retirement... NATO is not an Arm of the UN. Its member states and Supreme Command do however coordinate with the UN as the member states are also members of the UN and the very nature of NATO's business will impact their status and formal agreements with the UN... hence, the need to coordinate with the UN.
Germany remains a member of NATO but has no more power that any other member... Germany is also a member of the UN but they do not have any more statutory or lawful power than any other ordinary member. The US, China, Russia, England and France are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and hold the right to VETO all actions of the UN... giving them great power over the other members of the UN should they desire to exercise their VETO authority.
These docs above are released in public domain, declassified, period, no cares about the codes by the elite.
The ones that are not released is the strategic military plans by the the United Nations for NATO. NATO has built their own army, in 2012 there was 600,000 troops. Most of them are of the Arabic Legion. Which by the way has a office in Washington DC. Also connection to ISIS.
The docs show a slush fund of military sells to the UN NATO Forces. War ships, fighters, tanks, and a hell of a lot of rounds per say for the new world order military.
And still why did the UN name their damn building as such. You know why, and so do I, I have seen the building, seen the troops, and seen the military build up, why does the UN NATO need a million man army ?