Revised 1.2: November 24, 2019

Just following up on a point I made about several sections of the new North American trade agreement which seem to be relevant to the implementation of 5G (and above) networks:
https://canadianliberty.com/parliamentary-bill-and-text-of-new-north-american-trade-agreement/

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement

One of these sections, Chapter 18 “Telecommunications” seems very relevant:

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/Text/19_Digital_Trade.pdf

Anything like this is hard for a non-expert to interpret, but there are a lot of sections that attempt to limit independent government regulation–which is the anti-democratic and anti-sovereignty nature of these trade agreements–so I think that part of the intent of this chapter is to make the continued implementation of an integrated global telecommunications system easier–including 4G, 5G, 6G–no matter how ridiculous and invasive the hardware and infrastructure is, no matter about health concerns, no matter that it’s all about ultra-surveillance and “smart cities”–as if this is all something ordinary people ask for.

The idea I think is to try to knock out opposition to the Brave New World agenda with these types of agreements. But if governments wanted to listen to people, and enough people agreed, then any agreement can be torn up. The question for ordinary people is what kind of independent-minded conclusions can we arrive at and share with each other in the face of overwhelming propaganda? Are people able to communicate legitimate concerns and see eye-to-eye about what is good and what is bad?

I will cover 5G more in subsequent posts.

A couple of examples:

Article 18.3

2. Each Party shall ensure that any enterprise of another Party is permitted to:
…

(e)use operating protocols of its choice.

Article 18.15: Flexibility in the Choice of Technology

1. No Party shall prevent a supplier of public telecommunications services from choosing the technologies it wishes to use to supply its services, subject to requirements necessary to satisfy legitimate public policy interests, provided that any measure restricting that choice is not prepared, adopted, or applied in a manner that creates an unnecessary obstacle to trade.

2. For greater certainty, if a Party adopts a measure restricting choice referred to in paragraph 1, it shall do so consistent with Article 18.24 (Transparency)

On another (or related) subject of privacy–and smart cities are not about privacy:

Article 18.3

. . .

4. Notwithstanding paragraph 3, a Party may take measures necessary to ensure the security and confidentiality of messages or to protect the privacy of personal data of end-users of public telecommunications networks or services, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or disguised restriction on trade in services.

These statements don’t sound very clear-cut or black and white, but I think just reading any of this confirms the unsurprising fact for me that international trade agreements–in practice–are efforts to tie the hands of governments–who are supposedly meant to be responsive to the wishes, health, privacy concerns and best interests of their citizens.

So I’m just putting this out there for others to be aware of and for further study.

As far as the global nature of telecommunications standards such as 5G, there is more information about the international body involved in that (along with information about Smart Cities) here: 5G – overview: surveillance and invasiveness

---

---