Posted on 06/14/2006 1:22:02 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk
Author Jerome Corsi and Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., will be guests tomorrow on G. Gordon Liddy's radio show to discuss the White House's effort to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.
Corsi and Tancredo will join Liddy for the entire 11 a.m. hour, Eastern time, and take calls from listeners.
Corsi reported this week that Bush administration working groups have not disclosed the results of their work despite two years of massive effort within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada.
The groups, working under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, are to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.
The trilateral agreement, signed as a joint declaration not submitted to Congress for review, led to the creation of the SPP office within the Department of Commerce.
Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."
WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.
Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.
Department of Homeland Security
Press Releases
Fact Sheet: Security and Prosperity Partnership
On March 23, 2005, the United States, Canada and Mexico entered into an unprecedented trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to establish a common security strategy and promote economic growth, competitiveness and quality of life. At their meeting in Waco, TX, President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin pledged to:
“...establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders.”
The elected leaders called for Ministerial-led working groups to consult with stakeholders in each country and establish working groups to develop measurable and achievable goals. Within 90 days, the Ministers were to submit an initial, trilateral report. Because the SPP is designed to be an ongoing mechanism for trilateral cooperation, the working groups will continue to meet on a regular basis.
To further North American security goals, the elected leaders called for the three countries to:
Implementation Report
The SPP countries have agreed to these, and other, North American security goals:
North American Trusted Traveler Program. All three countries have agreed to create a single, integrated program for North American trusted travelers by 2008. Individuals applying for trusted traveler status would be able to apply for the program and pay relevant fees in one transaction. Enrolled participants would have access to all established trusted travel lanes at land crossings, airports and marine programs. A single North American Trusted Traveler Program embodies the intent of the SPP to establish optimum security goals while accelerating legitimate cross-border trade and travel. The U.S. will also be working cooperatively to identify Western Hemisphere travel document standards required under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
Preparedness and Incident Management Systems Integration. The United States, Canada and Mexico have agreed to transform North American preparedness for response to large-scale incidents by establishing protocols for incident management that impact border operations within 12 months. Protocols will also address maritime incidents, cross-border public health emergencies and cross-border law enforcement response.
The SPP countries have also committed to ensure interoperable communications systems and to participate in preparedness exercises that will strenuously test these protocols. In addition, the three countries will participate in a preparedness exercise in anticipation of the 2010 Vancouver/Whistler Winter Olympics.
Border Enforcement. The United States and Mexico will form joint intelligence-sharing task forces along the U.S.-Mexico border to target criminal gang and trafficking organizations and reduce violence along the border.
The United States and Canada will coordinate maritime enforcement programs to address the huge volume of boat traffic in our shared waterways.
Facilitated Flow of Legitimate Cargo and Travel Across Land Borders. The United States, Canada and Mexico have agreed to review our transportation and border facility needs, in partnership with stakeholders, and develop a plan to prioritize future port-of-entry-related infrastructure investments.
All three countries are considering programs to reduce transit times and border congestion by expanding trusted traveler programs to additional ports of entry and partnering with public and private sector stakeholders to establish “low-risk” ports of entry for the exclusive use of those enrolled in our trusted trade and traveler programs.
The United States and Canada, along with local stakeholders, are working to reduce the transit times by 25 percent at the Detroit-Windsor gateway within 6 months, and all three countries are exploring ways to expand this innovative 25 Percent Challenge to other North American land border crossings within the next 18 months.
By December of this year, the United States and Canada governments expect to complete an agreement on a pre-clearance pilot program at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo, NY, contingent on Canadian legislative amendments. Within six months, both countries will also develop a plan to expand the Vancouver NEXUS-Air pilot program to other United States air pre-clearance sites in Canada and examine the feasibility of expanding the eligibility for NEXUS-Air to include Mexican nationals.
Shared Watchlists and Integrated Traveler Screening Procedures. The United States, Canada and Mexico have agreed to strengthen information sharing related to terrorists and criminals. Effective information exchange among North American countries is essential to strengthening our capability to prevent acts of terror within and outside North America.
The United States, Canada and Mexico have also agreed to establish compatible screening standards for land, sea and air travel to identify and prevent high risk travelers and cargo before they depart for North America. Additionally, recommendations will be made on the enhanced use of biometrics in screening travelers destined to North America.
On an ongoing basis, the SPP will enable all three countries to address and resolve gaps in cross-border information sharing. Ultimately, all travelers arriving in North America will experience a comparable level of screening.
Maritime and Aviation Security. The SPP countries will also be working toward comparable standards for hold baggage and passenger screening, implementing no-fly programs throughout North America, and developing new protocols for air cargo inspection. Likewise, we will also be working to develop compatible maritime regulatory regimes and to strengthen information sharing and coordinated operations in the maritime domain.
SPP Accomplishments – The First 90 Days
Building upon strong relations and major security advances made since 9/11, the three countries have already taken several important steps on trilateral or bilateral initiatives that advance our common North American security agenda. Highlights of progress made during SPP’s first 90 days, include:
Cargo and Port Security
Public Safety
Border Infrastructure
Information Sharing
Science & Technology
###
http://www.apecsec.org.sg/apec/ministerial_statements/annual_ministerial/1997_9th_apec_ministerial.html
Maybe we should consider what is happening in other regions?
SPP Prosperity Working Groups
The prosperity agenda of the SPP seeks to enhance the competitive position of North American industries in the global marketplace and to provide greater economic opportunity for all of our societies, while maintaining high standards of health and safety for our people. To this end, the United States, Mexico, and Canada will work together, and in consultation with stakeholders to:
Following the March 23, 2005, launch of the SPP, each nation established Security and Prosperity working groups to fulfill the vision of the North American Heads of State. The working groups will consult with stakeholders; set specific, measurable, and achievable goals and implementation dates; and identify concrete steps the governments can take to achieve these goals. An initial report is due to Heads of Government on June 23 with semi-annual progress reports thereafter.
The Prosperity working groups established cover a wide range of issue areas:
Very nice layout, thank you.
NINTH APEC MINISTERIAL MEETING
VANCOUVER, CANADA
21-22 NOVEMBER 1997
JOINT STATEMENT
1. Ministers from Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; the People's Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; the Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; the Republic of the Philippines; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; and the United States of America participated in the Ninth Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministerial Meeting convened in Vancouver, Canada on 21-22 November 1997. Members of the APEC Secretariat were also present. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Secretariat, the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC), and the South Pacific Forum attended as observers. The meeting was co-chaired by the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada and the Honourable Sergio Marchi, Minister for International Trade for Canada. Ministers welcomed the first "APEC Results Report" which highlights the achievements of all APEC fora in 1997.
2. In reviewing these results and achievements, Ministers underscored the value of cooperation in strengthening economic growth and prospects for the region. They reaffirmed their commitment to pursue trade and investment liberalization, facilitation initiatives, and economic and technical cooperation. They agreed that the recent financial turbulence in the region reinforced the importance for APEC economies to lay the foundation to realize their longer-term growth potential which remains exceptionally strong. To this end, Ministers strongly endorsed a forward-looking approach to ensure that the benefits of open economies are fully realized.
Trade and Investment Liberalization and Facilitation
3. Ministers welcomed progress made in continuing the liberalization momentum through a mix of individual and collective actions as well as through identification of sectors for early voluntary liberalization.
Individual Action Plans (IAPs): Ministers reaffirmed that Individual Action Plans (IAPs) are key to the implementation of APEC's trade agenda for free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region by the year 2010 for developed economies and 2020 for developing economies.
Ministers welcomed and encouraged the ongoing process of bilateral consultations to exchange views on areas of interest and possible improvements in IAPs. Ministers also commended and encouraged the continuation of voluntary peer reviews in 1997 as an additional opportunity for members to demonstrate their commitment to advancing their IAPs.
Ministers commended the Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) for improving the format of the IAPs which will contribute to greater transparency, facilitate review and assessment, and enhance their usefulness to the business community. Ministers agreed to adhere to the improved format guidelines in preparing economies' revised IAPs.
Ministers welcomed the recommendations of the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) on how future plans could more effectively meet the needs of business in terms of value-added to commitments made elsewhere, transparency, specificity, and commitment to action. Ministers agreed to take account of the recommendations in revising their IAPs and Collective Action Plans (CAPs) in 1998 and future years, and directed officials to report to them in this regard by the June 1998 Meeting of Ministers responsible for trade.
4. Early Voluntary Sectoral Liberalization: Ministers recalled the instructions of the Leaders in Subic to identify sectors for early voluntary liberalization, and welcomed progress made by Ministers responsible for trade in May 1997 to accelerate this process. Ministers agreed to pursue initiatives for early voluntary sectoral liberalization in accordance with the attached statement, and welcomed the fact that many of the proposals include measures that will promote facilitation as well as economic and technical cooperation, illustrating again the integrated nature of APEC's work. Ministers also agreed that other actions should be taken so that the process remains consistent with, and promotes, further broad-based multilateral liberalization. Ministers underscored the importance of progressing toward the Bogor goals, and in demonstrating APEC's leadership in liberalizing global trade.
5. Trade and Investment Facilitation: Ministers welcomed the achievements under the Collective Action Plans (CAPs), which will significantly lower costs and reduce barriers to the movement of goods and services, capital, and business people. Ministers endorsed work in these areas, including:
Ministers welcomed the annual report of the Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI), and commended APEC fora both for their implementation and improvement of CAPs, and for the comprehensive range of short-term deliverables contained in the report. They called for renewed efforts on trade facilitation in the CTI and relevant Working Groups through 1998, having particular regard to the priorities of the business sector. Ministers called for intensified work on simplification and harmonization of customs procedures; standardized approaches to reduce and simplify documentary requirements (both print and electronic) for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises; and encouraged participation by additional members in the Asia-Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Conference Mutual Recognition Arrangement recently signed among accreditation bodies in five APEC economies. Ministers also called for implementation by member economies of the mutual recognition arrangement developed by the Telecommunications Working Group for certification of telecommunications equipment.
6. Contribution to World Trade Organization (WTO) Process: Ministers discussed the continuing contribution of APEC to supporting the multilateral trading system, and noted in particular the dynamic and catalytic role that APEC plays by virtue of its broad membership, embracing both developed and developing economies, and its continuing commitment to liberalization. Ministers agreed to work to ensure that regional and multilateral trade and investment initiatives complement and support each other. Ministers reaffirmed the primacy of an open, rules-based multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization (WTO), and reiterated their support for the prompt accession to the WTO of applicants in accordance with WTO rules and based on effective market access commitments with a view to achieving universality of WTO membership.
Ministers reiterated the importance of implementing fully all existing WTO commitments as a foundation for further multilateral trade liberalization, particularly through fulfilment of the built-in agenda of the WTO according to agreed timetables. Ministers accordingly welcomed the successful conclusion of the WTO Agreement on Basic Telecommunications. Ministers of economies committed to participating in the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) agreed to work together to achieve broader participation and expanded product coverage in the next phase of the ITA negotiations. Ministers agreed that the second WTO Ministerial Conference, to be held in May 1998, provides a timely opportunity to take stock of progress in the implementation of existing commitments and on the built-in agenda and to provide instructions to WTO bodies on the work necessary to prepare a substantive agenda for the WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in late 1999, with a view to pursuing further broad-based multilateral market access and other liberalization.
Ministers endorsed the efforts of negotiators from many APEC economies to reach a successful conclusion to the negotiations on financial services underway in the World Trade Organization by the deadline of December 12, 1997. As agreed by Finance and Trade Ministers, a successful conclusion would encompass an MFN agreement based on significantly improved commitments. Such an outcome would enhance competition within financial systems, foster development of regional capital markets, promote financial integration, improve the regional capacity to intermediate savings and strengthen the global trading system.
To maintain and strengthen APEC's leadership in multilateral trade liberalization and facilitation, Ministers reaffirmed their intention to continue to pursue APEC initiatives that support work in the WTO, including with respect to competition policy, trade facilitation, transparency in government procurement and dispute mediation. They agreed that the 50th anniversary of the multilateral trading system in May 1998 provides a unique opportunity to highlight the benefits that the system has provided during its first half-century . Building on this record, Ministers agreed to continue to work together to identify and pursue all areas where APEC can complement and support the multilateral trading system.
7. Impact of Trade Liberalization : Ministers reaffirmed their strong belief that continued trade and investment liberalization and facilitation is essential to economic growth and equitable development in the region. They noted that studies undertaken within APEC's Economic Committee confirm that timely implementation of commitments made by member economies under the Manila Action Plan for APEC will significantly increase trade and output in the APEC region and in the world more generally. Ministers acknowledged the need to expand the assessment of the impact of liberalization and facilitation, in order to promote a broad-based and balanced understanding of this issue within domestic communities. Ministers requested that further work be undertaken, and asked for a report on progress at the meeting of APEC Ministers responsible for trade in June 1998.
Economic and Technical Cooperation
8. Ministers committed to further strengthen economic and technical cooperation by fully implementing the Framework for Strengthening Economic Cooperation and Development which was agreed to in 1996. Ministers also reaffirmed the importance of economic and technical cooperation activities to strengthen economic fundamentals and welcomed the efforts made this year in this regard. Ministers endorsed the establishment of a SOM Subcommittee on Economic and Technical Cooperation.
Ministers emphasized that progress on all six priority areas (developing human resources; developing sound, safe and efficient capital markets; strengthening economic infrastructure; harnessing technologies for the future; safeguarding the quality of life through environmentally sound growth; and strengthening the dynamism of small and medium enterprises) is essential to reduce economic disparity among APEC economies, to improve the economic and social well-being of people, and to achieve sustainable growth and equitable development in the Asia-Pacific region.
They welcomed the particular emphasis given through 1997 on two priority areas: strengthening economic infrastructure and promoting environmentally sustainable growth, which served to accelerate progress on meeting the challenges in these two areas.
Ministers commended APEC fora for engaging the private sector and other experts in the implementation of the Framework for Strengthening Economic Cooperation and Development, including through the convening of public/private dialogue sessions, business workshops and expositions in 1997, and the Symposium on the impact of expanding population and economic growth on food, energy, and the environment (FEEEP) which brought together government, academic, non-government and business experts.
The following summarizes progress in 1997 on the six priorities of the Framework:
i) Economic Infrastructure : Improved infrastructure is a pressing need in the region. Ministers noted that public funds alone cannot meet the enormous infrastructure needs of the region, and reaffirmed the need for greater private/business sector involvement to meet the infrastructure requirements in the region. Ministers endorsed the development of the Vancouver Framework for Enhanced Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure Development and recommended it to Leaders for their consideration. Ministers commended the work of APEC Working Groups, the Economic Committee's Infrastructure Workshop, and its associated public/private dialogue process, in contributing to the implementation of the Framework. Ministers also recognized that infrastructure is a cross-cutting issue and acknowledged the contribution to the implementation of the Framework by several sectoral Ministerial processes. Ministers supported the proposal for a feasibility study on an APEC network of infrastructure facilitation centres as a focal point for infrastructure development. Ministers welcomed the mutual cooperation protocol signed by participating Export Credit Agencies and Export Financing Institutions to enhance, on a project by project basis, the attractiveness of infrastructure investment for private sector participants. Ministers called on all APEC fora to continue to participate actively in addressing the infrastructure development needs in the region including:
Creating an Asia-Pacific Information Society : Ministers recognized that telecommunications and information technology is transforming societies and economies, and that the Asia-Pacific Information Infrastructure (APII) is an essential foundation to ensure the competitiveness of the Asia-Pacific region for the new era. Ministers called on APEC economies, as well as the Telecommunications Working Group to implement actions necessary to make the Asia-Pacific information society a reality. Ministers welcomed Singapore's offer to host a Telecommunications and Information Industry Ministerial Meeting in 1998.
Creating an Integrated Asia-Pacific Transportation System: An efficient, safe, and integrated regional transportation system is critical to support growth. Ministers welcomed the results from the APEC Transportation Ministerial Meeting held in Victoria, June 1997, including the Declaration of Principles affirming commitment to harmonization of Civil Aviation Safety Rules. Ministers encouraged the implementation of these principles in support of civil aviation safety and efficiency. Ministers welcomed the completion of the transport congestion points study and the establishment of an Intermodal Task Force to develop an integrated transport system in the region.
Energy Infrastructure : Ministers noted that energy infrastructure is key to the region's development needs and acknowledged that planned future work will create an institutional and regulatory framework conducive to business and investment, and promote environmentally responsible practices. Ministers noted the results from the APEC Energy Ministerial Meeting held in Edmonton, August 1997, and congratulated their colleagues on producing a "Manual of Best Practice Principles for Independent Power Producers" which focuses on promoting a predictable, transparent framework for tendering, bidding, evaluation and approval processes. Ministers welcomed initiatives to promote environmentally sound regulatory practices, the development of natural gas infrastructure, and the multilateral recognition of energy efficiency testing facilities, methods, and results. Ministers welcomed Japan's offer to host the next Energy Ministerial in Okinawa, October 1998, which will discuss wide ranging energy challenges and policies.
Infrastructure for Sustainable Cities : Ministers welcomed progress made in 1997 in developing a greater understanding of the role that infrastructure plays in the development of cities that are economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and socially healthy. In particular, Ministers noted the Public/Private Dialogue in Los Cabos, June 1997, the Seminar on Environment and Economic Policies towards Sustainable Cities in Beijing, September 1997, and the upcoming workshop on the use of Economic Instruments towards Sustainable Cities in Taipei, December 1997.
Infrastructure for rural diversification and integration : Ministers noted that improving infrastructure in rural communities, including roads, telecommunications, power generation, and capacity building, is critical to the region's development and cannot be overlooked. Ministers directed APEC fora to work with the private sector and include in their efforts infrastructure initiatives for promoting integration and diversification of rural communities.
ii) Environmentally Sustainable Growth: Ministers recalled the decision to address sustainable development across all of APEC work programs and applauded the APEC Cleaner Production Strategy, the Strategy for the Sustainability of the Marine Environment, and the Sustainable Cities Program of Action as examples of coordinated approaches to integrate economic, social, and environmental considerations into work programs. Ministers noted that specific action items were identified for implementation during the APEC Environment Ministerial Meeting on Sustainable Development in Toronto, June 1997, and instructed all APEC fora to rapidly implement these initiatives. Ministers also recognized the challenge to sustainable growth posed by emerging infectious diseases, and concurred on the need for further collaboration.
Ministers endorsed the pledge by Environment Ministers that APEC economies must do their part to implement global commitments, with full consideration of domestic priorities and conditions. In this context, Ministers recognized the importance of effective action to deal with global emissions of greenhouse gases, and emphasized their strong support for constructive dialogue and successful results at the Third Conference of the Parties (COP 3) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-FCCC) as an important step towards meeting the objectives of the Convention. Ministers also shared the recognition of Energy Ministers that enhancing energy efficiency is key to addressing climate change.
FEEP : Ministers commended the work of the Economic Committee and its Task Force on Food, in collaboration with the Energy Working Group, Senior Environment/Economic Officials, and other APEC fora in addressing sustainability through examining the impact of fast-expanding population and rapid economic growth on food, energy, and the environment ("FEEEP"). Ministers welcomed the results of the FEEEP Symposium held in September 1997, Saskatoon, Canada which analyzed linkages among the elements of sustainability and cross-cutting themes. Ministers welcomed the Interim FEEEP Report to Leaders and agreed that the ability to adapt to changing technological conditions and economic constraints along with building partnerships and capacity building are key factors for success in the new millennium. Ministers called for further work in 1998 to lay the foundation for discussion by Leaders of possible joint actions.
Managing resources: In their 1993 Statement, APEC Leaders envisioned a community which could provide for a more secure future by protecting the quality of air, water and green spaces. Ministers commended the Tourism, Fisheries, Marine Resource Conservation, Human Resources Development, Industrial Science and Technology, Transportation, and Energy Working Groups in fostering technical cooperation, and promoting sustainable practices which facilitate investment and promote environmental protection. Ministers welcomed the establishment of the APEC Environmental Protection Centre in China. Ministers also noted the coordination of work in respect of the marine environment by a group of networks, including the Ocean Research Network for the Pacific, the Sustainable Development Training and Information Network, the Ocean Model and Information System for the APEC Region, the APEC Virtual Centre for Environmental Technology Exchange, and the Education-Network (Edu-Net) under the APEC Study Centres Consortium. Ministers applauded this coordination and called on other APEC fora to adopt similar inclusive approaches.
Emergency preparedness for disasters : Ministers noted that APEC should define its value-added role in formulating emergency preparedness and disaster recovery measures. Ministers called for strengthening cooperative efforts to ensure an effective and integrated approach to deal with this key issue. Ministers tasked Senior Officials to explore measures for joint action, taking into account the programs of other regional and international bodies, and to provide an inter-sessional report by June 1, 1998.
iii) Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs): Ministers welcomed the results of the APEC Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) Ministerial Meeting in Ottawa, September 1997, and applauded the commitment of SME Ministers to make changes at the domestic and APEC level to create business environments that will address the special needs of SMEs and encourage the creation of enterprises. Ministers also welcomed the Framework and Guide for APEC SME Activities which will help ensure that APEC is attuned to SME needs and will keep SMEs abreast of measures and activities undertaken across APEC fora to improve access to markets, technology, human resources, financing, and information. Ministers asked that all APEC fora integrate the Framework for APEC SME Activities into their programs. Ministers welcomed Malaysia's offer to host the next SME Ministerial Meeting in 1998.
iv) Developing Human Resources: Ministers welcomed the results of the Human Resources Development Ministerial Meeting in Seoul, September 1997, which emphasized that life-long learning and school-to-work transition are essential to creating an adaptable workforce as well as providing individuals with relevant skills; that skills development is one of the most important instruments for adjusting to the changes in the labour market and economic environment; and that the roles and contributions of labour and management in attaining APEC's objectives of promoting sustainable growth and the overall well-being of the people in the region are important. Ministers noted the United States proposal to host the next HRD Ministerial Meeting by the year 2000. Ministers invited officials to place special emphasis on human resource development in 1998.
v) Harnessing Technologies for the Future: Ministers noted the many initiatives to promote technological modernization of APEC member economies. In particular they welcomed:
Ministers agreed that electronic commerce is an important technological breakthrough. Recognizing the opportunities it presents as a tool for economic and social growth, Ministers called for a workplan to study a wide range of issues on electronic commerce, with a view to developing a predictable and consistent environment that enables all APEC economies to reap the benefits and foster growth of electronic commerce. Ministers recognized that the private sector should take the lead role as innovators and developers of this important medium. The workplan should be reviewed at the June 1998 Meeting of Ministers responsible for trade to consider further steps.
Recognizing the vital contribution that biotechnology can make toward expanding agricultural and food production, Ministers encouraged the Agricultural Technical Cooperation Experts Group to intensify science-based approaches to the introduction and use of bio-technology products.
Ministers welcomed Mexico's offer to host the third Science and Technology Ministerial in October 1998. Ministers directed officials to place special emphasis on this theme in 1998.
vi) Developing Capital Markets: Ministers acknowledged the continuing work of the APEC Finance Ministers on the critical importance of sound macroeconomic policies for financial market stability and sustained growth. Ministers welcomed the Finance Ministers' work to develop voluntary principles to guide financial and capital market development and their collaborative initiatives to deepen and broaden domestic financial and capital markets.
Recognizing the impact that recent currency and financial market instability has had on the economies of the region, the Ministers welcomed the results of the 18-19 November 1997 meeting in Manila of Finance and Central Bank Deputies from several APEC member economies that discussed a New Framework for Enhanced Asian Regional Cooperation to Promote Financial Stability. They welcomed the collective efforts to address the problems caused by the region's currency turbulence. The Ministers noted that similar meetings, involving ASEAN, several Asian economies, and G-15 member countries will be convened in Kuala Lumpur in early December.
In view of the prevailing currency volatility, the Ministers agreed to recommend to Leaders that they consider the timing of the next meeting of APEC Finance Ministers in order to adopt mechanisms for the enhancement of financial stability in the region.
Deepening the spirit of community
9. Ministers recalled that deepening the spirit of community in accordance with the APEC approach is critical in exercising a positive influence in the region and in the world. This vision of community requires that all sectors of society develop a stake in the success of APEC.
APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) Report: Ministers discussed the importance of public/private dialogue and increased interaction of ABAC in the overall process, including sectoral Ministerial Meetings. Ministers welcomed the evidence on how APEC is responding to the recommendations made in ABAC's 1996 report. Ministers directed that all APEC fora continue efforts to work in refining recommendations, defining priorities, and implementing the necessary actions.
10. Input from the business/private sector: Understanding concerns of businesses operating in the region is central to APEC's work. In this regard, Ministers noted that sectoral Ministerial Meetings in 1997 on Finance, Trade, Sustainable Development, Transportation, Energy, and Small-Medium Sized Enterprises all included dialogue sessions with business. Ministers also recognized that initiatives by APEC fora, such as the business symposia on customs and investment organized by subgroups of the Committee on Trade and Investment, the Economic Committee's Infrastructure Workshop Public/Private Dialogue and the FEEEP Symposium, the Energy Working Group's Ad Hoc Business Forum, and the APEC-PECC dialogue involving the Telecommunications Working Group, were innovative ways to obtain input from the private sector. To ensure APEC activities benefit business in a practical way, Ministers commended the involvement of the private sector to date in Working Group activities and encouraged APEC fora to continue to broaden engagement of the private sector, including young entrepreneurs and women leaders.
11. Youth: Ministers applauded the involvement of youth in APEC activities throughout 1997 and noted that sectoral Ministerial Meetings on Trade, Sustainable Development, Transportation, Energy, and SMEs had provided forums for meaningful dialogue with youth. Ministers welcomed the initiatives recognized by the HRD Ministerial Meeting which commended youth delegations for creating an Electronic Sourcebook on work, study and exchange opportunities in the APEC region, and the proposal to inaugurate an APEC Youth Skills Camp. Ministers encouraged member economies to support these initiatives.
12. Women : Ministers noted the attention paid to gender issues in APEC fora, including in the Industrial Science and Technology, Human Resources Development, Tourism, and Transportation Working Groups, as well as the Policy Level Group on SMEs and Senior Environment Officials. Ministers welcomed the offer of the Philippines to host a Ministerial Meeting on Women in 1998 in Manila, focusing on women and economic development and integrating women into the mainstream of APEC activities.
13. People-to-People linkages : Ministers noted that involving all sectors of society, particularly those in education and business is important in policy-making to promote sustainable growth and equitable development. In this regard, they welcomed the accomplishments in 1997 including the participation of such stakeholders at a number of APEC fora meetings, the opening of the APEC Education Foundation's Grants and Program Secretariat in Seoul, Korea and its administrative office in Monterey, USA. Ministers also noted the 1997 contributions of the APEC Study Centers to APEC's work program, including the Consortium Meeting which helped focus analysis more closely on issues important to APEC.
Ministers discussed the question of APEC's engagement with broader sectors of society that are affected by impacts of economic growth and liberalization. Ministers agreed in general that economic adjustment and growth can be most effectively addressed when governments and concerned sectors of society work together in harmony. Ministers noted related activities underway in the Human Resource Development (HRD) Working Group as endorsed by the recent HRD Ministerial Meeting, and called on the Working Group to continue its work in addressing these issues.
Organizational and Budget Issues
14. Ministers endorsed:
Ministers also noted the results of 1997 work from the ten APEC Working Groups and other APEC fora, namely the Energy, Fisheries, Human Resources Development, Industrial Science and Technology, Marine Resource Conservation, Telecommunications, Tourism, Trade and Investment Data Review, Trade Promotion, and Transportation Working Groups; as well as the Policy Level Group of Small-Medium Enterprises, Agricultural Technical Cooperation Experts Group, and Senior Environment/ Economic Officials, and directed these fora to continue the implementation of the Framework for Strengthening Economic Cooperation and Development through coordinated initiatives.
15. Ministers endorsed the SOM Chair's Report on Organizational Issues and instructed officials to implement the recommendations contained in the report and supporting documents. Ministers approved the 1998 budget of $ 7,551,139. Ministers also approved the 1998 contribution of member economies of $US 3,864,000.
16. Report of the APEC Secretariat : Ministers expressed appreciation for the work done by the Executive Director, Ambassador Jack Whittleon, and staff of the APEC Secretariat in supporting the various APEC Committees and Working Group and the APEC process as a whole.
Membership and Participation Issues
17. Membership: Ministers endorsed the Guidelines on APEC Membership and undertook to consider them in future deliberations on this matter. A variety of views were expressed on the number of new members to be included and the timing. However, the final decision on this matter was left to Leaders.
18. Non-member participation in APEC fora : Ministers noted the increased non-member participation in Working Group activities following the adoption of the Consolidated Guidelines on Non-member Participation in Working Group Activities last November. Ministers further endorsed the SOM decisions on application of the Consolidated Guidelines.
19. Future Meetings: Ministers thanked Malaysia for the valuable briefing on the preparations for the Tenth APEC Ministerial Meeting, and look forward to their next meeting in Kuala Lumpur in 1998. Ministers also thanked New Zealand and Brunei Darussalam for their updates on plans for the Eleventh and Twelfth Annual Meetings, which will be held in their respective economies. Ministers welcomed the announcement that the People's Republic of China will host the Thirteenth Meeting in the year 2001.
You're very welcome. Great links.
Thanks AC!
Hmmm, not into that tonight!
ping
Nice photo!
Bump... your comment ... and agree.
I appreciate the ping. I'll be listening to Liddy tomorrow.
I voted for Bush twice but Wrong is Wrong. These who idolize Bush remind me of the children's story, "The Emperor's New Clothes." Bush could be strutting down the street butt nakid with the Queen of England and they would
find something to try and convince you that you are not seeing what you are seeing.
There is some interesting stuff linked from this page.
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/
Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
The Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs is headed by Assistant Secretary of State Thomas A. Shannon, Jr., who is responsible for managing and promoting U.S. interests in the region by supporting democracy, trade, and sustainable economic development, and fostering cooperation on issues such as drug trafficking and crime, poverty reduction, and environmental protection.
Mission: We are working with our partners in the Americas to generate broad-based growth through freer trade and sound economic policies; to invest in the well-being of people from all walks of life; and to make democracy serve every citizen more effectively and justly.
Objectives: We are strengthening an Inter-American community formed by:
• Economic partners that are democratic, stable, and prosperous;
• Friendly neighbors that help secure our region against terrorism and illegal drugs;
• Nations that work together in the world to advance shared political and economic values.
SPP and the Way Forward for North American Integration:
North American Solutions
by
Stephen Blank, Ph.D.
Stephanie R. Golob, Ph.D.
and
Guy Stanley, Ph.D.
Stephen Blank is Professor of International Management at the Lubin School of Business, Pace University.
Stephanie R. Golob is Associate Professor of Political Science at the Weissman School, Baruch College, CUNY.
Guy Stanley is Adjunct Professor of International Business at McGill University.
This paper was presented at the International Studies Association annual meeting in San Diego, CA, in March 2006. It was part of a panel, “Future Relations Between Canada and the United States: Continental Drift or EU-Style Integration?”
ABSTRACT
During the past year, relations among the NAFTA partners took on an increasingly two-tier structure. More visible were a widening array of disagreements over issues including BMD, Iraq, US demands on passports, the Senate’s vote to keep the border shut to Canadian cattle, alleged American gun trafficking and, above all, Washington’s efforts to evade the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber. Yet, despite this mix of genuine grievances and political posturing, we saw substantial movement toward a more efficient North American economic system. Reports from the Security and Prosperity Partnership Working Groups set up after the Bush-Fox-Martin meeting in Waco, Texas, illustrated a wide array of activities under the politico-journalistic radar. Perhaps more important are the myriad of business- and community-driven initiatives underway to expand and improve cross-border links. How much of all of this will actually lead to concrete results is unclear. But several conclusions are evident. One is that this movement is driven by deepening interdependence. The second is that the current two-tier process in which national leaders kick each other in the shins while businesses and bureaucrats in federal, state, and municipal governments and community groups squirrel away to repair problems in the North American system will not work. Third is that “integration-by-stealth” is also unacceptable. The time has come to examine carefully what is happening in North America, to explore what our interests are in this emerging continental system, and to open a dialogue about different, even competing, visions of North America. The dialogue should involve perspectives from different regions, different economic and social sectors, and those who oppose as well as support integration. The process must get outside of the beltways — it must give voice to community and economic leaders who are most deeply involved in this new system.
Other than the expression of anger at the Liberals, it is still too early to tease out the deeper implications of the January election in Canada. With regard to relations with the United States, we can reasonably anticipate some change in the government’s style, but given Harper’s minority position as well as the views of most Canadians on Iraq, Bush and an array of other matters, we should not expect dramatic change in substance. Even on issues (Kyoto, Ballistic Missile Defense [BMD]) where Harper’s views may be closer to Washington’s, the new Prime Minister has no political interest in reaching out to the current US administration. If anything, Harper’s first exchange with Washington, over the arctic passage, suggests that he will seize the opportunity to stand on guard to protect Canada’s national interests.
What we are likely to see, therefore, for the foreseeable future, is the continuation of the two-tier arrangement that developed over the past year.
During 2005, the media, usually oblivious to North American developments, focused on increasing tension among the NAFTA partners. In March, after Ottawa’s decision not to join the BMD program, Time columnist Stephen Handelman wrote, “Canada’s stock seems be hovering at North Korea level in Washington.” US demands on passports, the Senate’s vote to keep the border shut to Canadian cattle, alleged American gun trafficking, and, above all, Washington’s efforts to evade the NAFTA ruling on softwood lumber led to a Canadian tsunami of righteous indignation. While former Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy urged Canadians to consider withdrawing from NAFTA, others suggested shutting down hydrocarbon exports until America shaped up on softwood. As the Canadian election campaign opened, it seemed that Prime Minister Martin was running against the United States – and that US Ambassador David Wilkins was deep in the fray.
Yet, despite this mix of genuine grievances and political posturing, there was substantial movement toward a more efficient North American economic system. Reports from the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Working Groups set up after the Bush-Fox-Martin meeting in Waco, Texas, illustrated a wide array of activities taking place under the political-journalistic radar – some associated with existing NAFTA Working Groups, some apparently newer.1 These include, for example, a new framework agreement to encourage trans-border online business, the implementation of modifications of rules of origin covering many products, a memorandum of understanding on information exchange and cooperation on public health and safety protection of consumer products and even a harmonized approach to BSE. There were agreements to develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperation Framework by 2007, to pursue a North American Steel Strategy, to create a trilateral Automotive Partnership Council of North America, and to undertake an accelerated program to promote mutual recognition of results from testing laboratories.
Perhaps more important is the myriad of business and community driven initiatives underway to expand and improve cross-border links. Specialist groups such as the Can-Am Border Trade Alliance provide a critical voice insisting that security and efficiency are not
incompatible. From the Detroit River International Crossing Project to the improved Lacolle-Champlain Border Crossing and the East-West Maine Highway Study – to name a very few – business and local groups are pressing for new transportation and border infrastructure. The same goes for developments along trade corridors – such as deepening entrepreneurial ties among Winnipeg, Kansas City, Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Mexico’s deep-water Pacific ports. Indeed, Mexico plans to open its first foreign-based customs clearing facility in Kansas City in 2006, 1000 miles from the border.
How much of all of this will actually lead to concrete results is unclear. But three conclusions are evident.
One conclusion is that this movement is driven by deepening interdependence. The political economy of North America is no longer composed of three national economies, but rather of links among production clusters and distribution hubs across the continent – links resting on new cross-border alignments among business, communities, and local and state-provincial governments.
The constantly repeated mantra that North America is the world’s largest trade bloc, with the world’s largest bilateral trade relationships, is misleading. The traditional trade paradigm, which encourages us to think of the exchange of finished goods across national borders, is simply not a productive way of imaging the substance of the North American economic system. We are not just trading partners. What flows across our borders are not mainly finished goods. We collaborate in complex, cross-border production systems. For example, a quarter of the more than a billion and a quarter dollars of goods crossing the US-Canada-Mexico borders daily is automotive. But we don’t sell cars to each other. That’s the key: We build them together. What is unsaid, however, is that the cumulative result of cross-border trade and investment is for most practical purposes an integrated economy.
We also share increasingly integrated energy markets; service the same customers with an array of financial services; use the same roads and railroads to transport jointly made products to market; fly on the same integrated airline networks; and increasingly meet the same or similar standards of professional practice. This is what economists call “deep” or structural integration.
This degree of collaboration between countries is unprecedented. But for the result—a new system with levels of integration that often surpass that of the European Union—there is no adequate social science vocabulary. Efforts to force this North American system into standard economic integration paradigms confuse more than they illuminate. Much work on Canada-US relations, for example, draws conclusions based on economic integration as trade theory understands it—that is, as led by trade liberalization and harmonization, moving progressively from free trade area to customs union, to a common market. But North America is already very much a single market without having passed through these subsequent stages.
One vivid example of how North America works today is electricity. Joseph Dukert, an independent energy consultant, observes that “with scant attention from the public or the press,
North America has become the largest integrated energy market the world has ever seen.”2 This is not just one-way trade between Canadian and Mexican suppliers of energy and energy hungry US consumers. Several Canadian provinces are net importers of electricity from the US, while others are net exporters, and the US is now a consistent net exporter of gas to Mexico.
The three countries of North America did not start out in the early 1990s to create trilateral energy interdependence, yet that is clearly what we have now. How did this all come about? A lot of push came from business and from changing perspectives on resource availability and markets. Deregulation and its impact on the structure of the industry and markets were vital elements in stimulating change, as was technology. Organizational innovation was also important – the formation of The North American Energy Reliability Council and, of course, NAFTA.
National electrical systems composed of vertically integrated companies no longer exist in North America. Deregulation and technology forced fundamental change in corporate, industry and market structures within a new continental framework.
Agriculture is another example of the complex integration that characterizes large segments of the North American economy. One expert says “agriculture is one of North America's most integrated industries.” 3 In many sectors, products move back and forth across the border all along the value chain. In the cattle and beef sectors, for example, Mexico exports feeder calves to the U.S. market and before BSE, Canada exported fed steers. The United States ships feeders to Canada and breeding stock to Mexico and exports US beef to Mexico and Eastern Canada, while Canadian beef is exported to the western United States.
Why do we still view North America in terms of a trade block? One reason is that resources have not been devoted to studying how things actually work. Neither firms doing business in North America nor research institutions have felt it was in their interest to encourage this kind of in-depth analysis of supply chains and logistics. Nor have governments: Viewing North America as relations among trading partners shelters perceptions of national sovereignty. Trade is less threatening than the reality of structural interdependence, of three nations sharing a single economic system.
The second conclusion is that the current two-tier process in which national leaders kick each other in the shins while businesses and bureaucrats in federal, state, and municipal governments and community groups squirrel away to repair problems in the North American system is unacceptable – unacceptable because, the step by step approach (embodied in the SPP) lacks the coherence that is needed now not only to advance economic integration in North America, but even to maintain existing levels of integration.
Building this new North American economic system was very much a bottom-up process, driven largely by corporate perceptions of changes in global and national markets and
environments. Trade liberalization in the GATT and the impact of the collapse of oil prices on Canada and Mexico made changes in the structure of business in North America both necessary and possible, but the process itself was the result of strategies put in place by many individual companies. The flexibility of this process, with little government control, encouraged rapid economic growth and job creation.
From this perspective, NAFTA (and the earlier CUSFTA) can be viewed as responses by governments to developments already underway in the North American economy, efforts to bring regulatory frameworks into line with this emerging economic system and to encourage investors to continue to deepen these new arrangements.
Flows of goods and capital across North America’s internal borders increased dramatically following NAFTA, the Mexican financial crisis of 1994 notwithstanding. More and more goods moved within companies, reflecting the deepening of corporate cross-border production, distribution, and supply systems.
But even before 9/11, limits to bottom-up growth began to emerge. In some cases, the limits were political, as in the case of softwood lumber and in disagreements about the cross-border movement of some agricultural goods. Other blockages were vices of virtues. The increase in volume of goods moving across our internal borders outran the capacity of North American physical infrastructure – roads, bridges, railroads, and border crossings. The impact of dysfunctional regulations – the “tyranny of small differences” – increased, too, as the scale of integration increased and as easier gains from bottom up integration had run their course.
“Too many (sometimes purposeless) differences in regulation in the two economies,” George Haynel observes, “may create too much room for systemic friction within an integrated economic zone....”4
The bottom line here is that it can no longer be assumed that spill-over from economic integration will be automatic or efficient.
Let us focus on just one example among many. Today, our transportation and border infrastructure barely suffice to support our economy; there is little margin left for future expansion.
Substantial efforts have been made to improve the physical infrastructure at border crossings, particularly since 9/11. The US-Canada Smart Border agreement and the parallel agreement with Mexico marked significant commitments to improve border management. Organizations such as the Border Trade Alliance and the Can-Am Border Trade Alliance and various border communities have initiated dialogues with government agencies that have achieved significant incremental improvement in processes at the borders. Many who work in these agencies understand the problems of complexity and delay and seek better answers. But the pyramiding of requirements and programs, each of which can significantly inhibit quick border processing and all of which together require high degrees of inter-agency coordination
(and typically involve federal, state, and even local governments), as well as new levels of cooperation with business and border communities has created tumult in some instances and threatens what Stephen Flynn calls “a potential train wreck.”5
While attention is at least focused on border issues, it is less certain that there is any sense of a North American transportation and logistics structure.
People have talked about “NAFTA Superhighways” for a decade, and it has been clear since the mid-1980s that increased volumes of goods flowing north and south demand new approaches to transportation infrastructure.
The US Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991 was aimed at alleviating bottlenecks along highways and at border crossings. The Act identified 21 “high priority corridors,” and included funding for studies of border congestion as well as highway feasibility studies. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHS) added eight more high priority corridors. ISTEA evolved into the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which created an additional 14 high priority corridors. This Act contained specific directives on trade corridor planning and border facility improvements.
Entrepreneurial enthusiasm and the prospect of new funding encouraged the formation of various “trade corridor” organizations – typically groups of businesses and metropolitan and often state government agencies that would create an organization to capture some part of the new north-south flow.
The highway funds became a pot into which Congressional etiquette encouraged everyone to dip his fingers. The number of designated high priority corridors increased quickly, and everyone sought to earmark funds for his/her own corridors. The result is that the latest map of high priority corridors looks like a plate of spaghetti. Highways and border crossings have been improved here and there, but no movement is visible toward developing a true North American highway system, and certainly nothing like the bruited about plans for super multimodal corridors, wired with fiber-optics and the latest digital frills, has come about. If anything, the general state of major highways in the US has declined over the past decade and it is hard to imagine that Mexico or even Canada have done better.6
Trucks carry some three-quarters of North America’s freight traffic, but the volume, if not the share, carried by rail has grown greatly. Mergers and alliances in the railroad industry in the mid-1990s seemed to be building networks that would provide seamless rail service from Canada to Mexico. From a security perspective, railroads are easier to monitor and control; it is much easier, once technology is in place, to get trains across borders. But no discussion has taken place on expanding the North American rail system, nor is there any sense of where, how,
or with whom such discussions might begin.
Warning flags are up. Mary Brooks from Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, a specialist on road and rail transportation, warned the Study Group that “there is a danger of stalling the integration of the manufacturing sector if transport harmonization is further delayed. Rising security concerns post 9/11 have resulted in increased border delay, which has damaged the credibility of the just-in-time system. The result has been to boost buffer stocks, and force just-in-time supply chain managers to re-examine their sourcing options; it is of concern to Canada that many US companies will source domestically rather than within NAFTA due to border uncertainty.”7
Similarly, an automotive specialist, Isabel Studer, writes “The auto industry is widely seen as one of the most integrated North American industries. But the protectionist environment in the United States, the continued existence of costly rules of origin, expensive regulations, and different standards – particularly between Mexico and its two North American partners – are undermining the competitive potential derived from achieving further integration in the North American auto industry.”8
The SPP may mark a significant step forward in this situation. From one perspective at least, the SPP working group report suggests that elements within the three NAFTA governments do understand that the North American economic system is not simply a trade bloc but a deeply integrated economic system, and that governments must be more active in creating the conditions for further integration. Certainly agreements on a trilateral Regulatory Cooperation Framework and on sectoral strategies in steel, autos, and energy suggest a new view of North America. (Another perspective, of course, is that the report represents a great pile of things that are partially underway, that might be underway, or that possibly could be underway – all compiled to put as good a face as possible on the project.)
Yet, even in the most optimistic reading, the SPP provides little sense of what we really want from all of this or how we can get there. In the each of the cases we have described, opportunities to resolve impediments to integration are best – indeed, perhaps only – found within a wider North American framework. It is difficult to seize these opportunities, however, because we lack a vision of what North America might become. The result is that efforts to resolve problems are fragmented and lack coherence. Where progress occurs, it is almost always piecemeal. The SPP does not change this situation; it offers no vision of why we are doing this or what we hope to accomplish.
North American economic integration has been driven by corporate strategies and structures. Now, limits to this bottom up process have been reached and clear decisions are required on key issues of security, borders, transportation, energy, and immigration. At this point, the incremental approach is simply not enough.
The third conclusion is that integration-by-stealth is also unacceptable. NAFTA became very quickly the lightning rod for all fears about globalization. If we hope to get beyond this, these concerns must be confronted. At the political level, there has been widespread failure to understand, let alone articulate and support, this new environment. Governments have lacked the appropriate conceptual tools and vocabulary to adequately address the new North America in policy terms. North American prosperity is intimately linked to the continent’s economic flows, but economic policy makers in the NAFTA countries continue to downplay this reality. Instead, they continue to act as though North America and NAFTA is the same thing: a three-way trade agreement among three sovereign countries. Politicians are reluctant to redefine national interests in North American terms, raising questions of our capacity to seize the opportunities offered in this new environment. NAFTA itself laid no foundations for identifying or solving problems that would emerge from deeper integration. It provided no vehicles for planning, or even thinking about what might come next. That’s why the SPP process seems to hang in mid-air.
The danger is that without some overall sense of where we are going and why, the many steps now underway may not lead anywhere.
The time has come to examine carefully what is happening in North America, to explore what our interests are in this emerging continental system, and to open a dialogue about different, even competing, visions of North America.
We need to create a new, “North American” way of viewing policy options. We need a vision of North America that establishes objectives for deliberate actions to supplement the bottom-up process of North American integration, a vision that shapes discussions among the NAFTA nations, economic interests, and groups of civil society.
The core of this vision would be the clearest understanding of the interests North Americans share in a freer continent-wide economic system and in an effective, cost-efficient, and secure infrastructure that supports this system.
This vision would provide the context that the SPP process so clearly requires. It would focus attention on seeking ways to solve problems such as eliminating roadblocks and dismantling barriers to continuing integration, reaching out to groups that have not yet participated in the benefits of integration, sharing information, coordinating policy in key issue areas, and capturing new gains from deeper integration. It would guide us in thinking about new institutions. Here, Robert Pastor has written most eloquently, for example, about a North American Court on Trade and Investment and a “North American Parliamentary Group” composed of members from the three national legislatures.9
Efforts to revitalize the movement toward economic integration in North America should not be perceived as the negotiation of a grand new bi- or tripartite trade deal zero-sum trade negotiation but as a collaborative effort to enunciate an accurate and compelling vision of the
North American economy, of the interests we share in this system and of steps that will make it safer, freer, more inclusive and more productive.
Instead of compressing the wide range of distinct issues into a single negotiation, discussions should involve many participants – in think-tanks, universities, expert commissions, and groups of “wise people” and government agencies across the continent. It should involve perspectives from different regions, different economic and social sectors, and those who oppose as well as support integration. It should anticipate, given the regional architecture of North America and our federal systems of government, that proposed solutions might differ from region to region.
We need desperately to stimulate research on this new North America. While some work has been done (for example, on a North American customs union), we need to promote much more investigation that probes more deeply into the evolving shape of the North American system.
The process must get outside of the beltways – it must give voice to community and economic leaders who are most deeply involved in this new system. If efforts to build a new North American system imply the creation of a new Otto-Wash-Mexico City corridor, they will lack legitimacy in many parts of the continent.
The process would serve another valuable purpose. It would accustom leaders and publics to think in terms of North American answers to critical economic and social issues, and to legitimize the notion that key issues that affect communities throughout the US can be resolved best by North American solutions. It is vital to identify key leadership constituencies that drive efforts to maintain open borders and to increase the efficient operation of the North American economy. The impetus for making the political decisions that are needed to build a more open, efficient, and representative North American system must come from constituencies that feel directly the impact of economic integration.
Jean Monnet, the “father of the European Community,” felt that people could only unite behind a vision they shared. Monnet also understood the importance of building informed and committed constituencies, groups that would press governments to realize the vision. Through the Action Committee, Monnet sought to mobilize constituencies that would support a European Community. He describes the “constant outside pressure” that the Action Committee brought to bear, and “the moral influence the Committee exerted on the established authorities in each country.”10
In North America, constituencies already exist. They consist of companies that run continental production, supply, and marketing systems; cities where jobs depend upon efficient North American transportation and logistics networks; and communities living on the borders. Most of their leaders understand how these systems and networks operate.
The task is to mobilize these groups to educate their representatives in state and national capitals about the impact of North American economic integration on jobs and economic
development in their own communities. To apply the “constant outside pressure” and “moral influence” Monnet described—to create a true voice for North American integration in our governments. To create a voice in our governments that enunciates the goals of North America integration and inclusion and presses for new policies to achieve these objectives.
There is a North American reality – a complex North American system, many sectors of which are characterized by deep structural integration – that is deeply misunderstood. Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans, too, depend profoundly on this system. After a decade of rapid growth, however, and in the wake of the events of 9/11, we see evidence that integration has slowed and that the North American economic system is becoming more fragile. To reinvigorate the process of integration requires the mobilization of informed and active constituencies that will press the three NAFTA governments to take new, constructive steps forward.
1 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America; Report to Leaders (June 2005)
2 Joseph Dukert, “The Quiet Reality Of North American Energy Interdependence,” Study Group on Mapping the New North American Reality, IRPP. The next paragraphs are drawn from this paper.
3 Parr Rossen, Director of the Center for North American Studies in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Texas A&M, Interview, December 17, 2004.
4 George Haynal, “The Next Plateau In North America: What’s The Big Idea,” Study Group on Mapping the New North American Reality, IRPP.
5 See Stephen Flynn, “The False Conundrum: Continental Integration Versus Homeland Security,” in Peter Andreas and Thomas J. Biersteker, eds, The Rebordering of North America: Integration and Exclusion in a New Security Contex” (New York & London: Routledge, 2003).
6 The “2003 Report Card” by the American Society of Civil Engineers, for example, awards a D- for maintaining existing roads and bridges. (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm?reaction=full&page=6#roads)
7 Mary Brooks, “Mapping the New North American Reality: The Road Sector,” Study Group on Mapping the New North American Reality, IRPP.
8 Isabel Studer, “The North American auto industry,” Study Group on Mapping the New North American Reality, IRPP.
9 Robert Pastor, Toward a North American Community; Lessons from the Old World for the New (Washington. DC: Institute for International Economics, 2001:119-135).
10 Jean Monnet, Memoires (1978: 408).
Ping to #317.
They remind me of that too.
But no matter how much they squall, the facts are right out in the open for every thinking person to see.
Thank you for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.