Posted on 05/30/2006 10:01:14 AM PDT by NapkinUser
In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.
SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Econom�Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernaciarlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.
Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:
In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.
This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.
Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.
And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:
The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.
Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles or we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding , or we have signed a declaration of intent etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.
What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.
Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.
Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.
The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled Building a North American Community.
The Task Forces central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)
The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:
Its (the North American Communitys) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)
What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the Amero, the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:
While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.
The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)
Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup detat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our governments desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.
Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.
Major Seaport Proposed for Baja California Norte |
|
|
The down-side is the obvious environmental impact. The LA Times described the intended area as deserted farmland This is far from fact. Punta Colonet south San Quintin is one of the most productive agricultural areas in Baja. Its proximity to Hwy 1 and the US have spurred the growth of large commercial farming in the area. Having anchored in Punta Colonet, it is a beautiful, unspoiled area where orchards and farms run right to the oceans edge. There has been tremendous growth in the region over the last 5 years. Chinese and Korean firms have not been known for their environmental planning or concerns. One US environmentalist is quoted as saying, This is just another case of exporting Californias dirty environmental problems to the pristine coastline of Baja California. This is one of the last places we can preserve the beauty that once was the entire west coast |
LA Harbor has been so overwhelmed last fall by the increase in imports that ships were reported waiting to be offloaded for as long as a week. Project lobbyists say that more port facilitates are needed and there are no options within the US. Part of the difficulty in US construction is the environmental criteria that such a facility would have to meet. Mexico has environmental concerns as well, but these concerns often are circumvented in the light of the need for economic growth and heavy lobbying. More than $200 billion dollars of shipping enters the US annually through California ports. A port in Punta Colonet would provide Mexico a piece of that action. The up-side of this project is the economic boon to Baja. Thousands of jobs would be created in the construction process as well as in manning the port. Although most of the skilled labor jobs would come from elsewhere in Mexico and more likely from foreign firms conduction the construction. |
If corners are cut to meet a budget, improvements to highways could be limited. Additional truck traffic on a road already in need on improvements beyond those ongoing would be disastrous. The road south of Ensenada is not safe or expedient in handling the truck traffic it now carries, as it winds into the mountains of Baja. Major improvements would have to be made north all the way to the US border to handle the additional traffic generated not only by the port, but by the needs of the people who would work there. The rail line that would be needed to cut road traffic and link the port to the US is another problem. It would have to be constructed and paid for by Mexican concerns. Mexican law prohibits the foreign ownership of such rail links. There would also be costs incurred by the US taxpayers to process and inspect the cargo before it entered the US, further taxing the busiest border crossing in the world, into San Diego. These same interests have expressed displeasure with increase scrutiny of inbound cargo. Delays in delivery cost money. As a note, French, English and Russian interests have all attempted to build port facilities in the area over the last 100+ years. All of these attempts were later abandon. Mitsubishi attempted to expand port facilities for salt exports in Baja Sur and was thwarted by international environmental interests just a few years ago. The Mexican government was forced to withdraw approval of the project in a case where concern for the planet overpowered the vast quantity of money the Japanese firm threw at the project. |
Imagine the world's LARGEST port company building a port? What CAN they be thinking of? :Why World Domination, Pinky."
Marx never said any such thing. Although he did believe that socialism could only be realized AFTER the fullest development of capitalism.
Free trade was the principal theory of international trade before Marx was even born. That great Communist and Zionist conspirator, Adam Smith, explained it to all who could comprehend.
Now Texas is supposed to allow its transportation system to deteriorate because Whackaloons might believe that improving it could be an international conspiracy? OK, riiight.
FYI
William Triplett III, a Washington-based conservative analyst ... warns [a chinese port] will become a Chinese naval base "on little cat feet."
Beijing is assembling a "string of pearls"-including ports, listening posts and naval agreements
In September [2005], [Mexican] Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez spoke at Columbia University. In his speech, Derbez bluntly stated that Mexico could not compete with China for manufactured exports. Instead, Derbez suggested that Mexico capitalize on China's rapid economic growth by becoming a "Singapore-like way- station" for U.S. bound Chinese goods. "Let's make our own ports and everything ready so that we can transfer and take the merchandise to the U.S. If we can be as efficient as Singapore, we will be able to have a tremendous amount of job growth."
As the U.S. tries to maintain a foothold in Central Asia and the Middle East, China is making tremendous progress in the Western Hemisphere. Along with Venezuela and Cuba, China
has made Mexico an important part of coordinated Latin
American strategy sending an unmistakable signal to Washington that it plans to set up shop in America's backyard. Washington should be concerned about the possibility that Mexico may one day perceive China as an ally comparable to the U.S. As events unfold, it would be wise to remember the words of Russian communist leader Vladimir Lenin who stated, "The road to America is through Mexico."
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1005/1005mexicochina.txt
So there have been attempts to build this project for over a century? Thank God for the CFR, it can get things done. LoL
Now we are to fear Mexico developing though if it does not we still have enormous pressure from Illegals.
Clearly the only answer is to NUKE Mexico City before it is too late.
Read my post #120. This is my first time to read this. It is the apprehension of a terrorist smuggler on the
Mexican border. This was used in the Sept, 11 commission report. Middle Easterners and Hezballa
Since you claim to know, as a matter of fact, so much about CFR, as indicated by your continued refutations to any and all statements and speculations made on this and other threads, about obvious and apparent correlations between documents prepared by the CFR and projects, plans, and/or documents prepared by or for the U.S. Govt., Canada, Mexico, companies, and other entitites.
From where have you obtained your vast resource of information that allows you to dismiss, outright, CFR workings and involvement with future plans stated by the governments of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada?
See post #125, it expresses the plan for making Mexico into another Singapore for China.
From texastoo's post #120:
Saturday, July 2, 2005
But after Boughader was locked up, other smugglers operating in Lebanon, Mexico and the United States
continued to help Hezbollah-affiliated migrants in their effort to illicitly enter from Tijuana, a U.S.
immigration investigator said in Mexican court documents obtained by the AP.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:uFV8Tz4oSDUJ:www.immigrationforum.org/documents/NewsClips/0705/DC070505.pdf+falfurrias+terrorist+illegal+mohammad&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2#9
How in the world would anyone come up with "the opposite conclusion."? Are you suggesting that the Senate plan (S2611) would result in fewer immigrants?
If you do this I do not believe you will honestly accept the claim that another 100 millions will come here. Not even in 20 years.
I have read it and find it entirely credible. What assumptions do you not find valid and what do you think the result will be? 80 Million? Any which way, I think the answer is too many!
Well now we know what the deal about the borders are about.
Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
I've been saying this many times but National Referendum is not a bad idea in such a case. At the very least it would scare the daylights out of politicians and remind them who is boss.
Thanks, I am having difficulty copying. My IE wants to copy the whole page.
"So there have been attempts to build this project for over a century? Thank God for the CFR, it can get things done. LoL."
Well you finally contradicted yourself...
"Now we are to fear Mexico developing though if it does not we still have enormous pressure from Illegals."
We don't fear Mexico you dummie. The issue of their exporting their illegals to subvert our souverneignty is what's at question!
"Clearly the only answer is to NUKE Mexico City before it is too late."
Now as supposedly a grown up, you're really showing your stupidity.
For some reason, I don't know why, there are times I am not "allowed" to copy anything. Then I have to reboot a new browser, and then I can copy. (Definitely a browser problem.)
Rammed right down your throat. No vote, no discussion. In fact, we've been lied to about this for several years...despite the fact that we're at war. Well, Hill told us they'd be taking things away from us 'for the common good'. US sovereignty was at the top of the list.
PEGGY PEATTIE / Union-Tribune
The sleepy, sweeping inlet of Punta Colonet in Baja California will be transformed into a multibillion-dollar container port, one of the biggest maritime transportation centers on the West Coast of North America, under a plan by Mexico's government.
|
"What is intended is to get the interest of several consortia," said Carlos Jaurequi, of the Secretariat of Communications and Transportation and the federal official in charge of Ensenada's port.
The Punta Colonet site is a virtual blank slate, said Jaurequi, who will seek proposals this year.
"There's nothing there now," he said.
If the plan succeeds, Punta Colonet's expansive cove and 27,000 surrounding acres would become one of the largest maritime transportation centers on North America's West Coast.
The facility is among Mexico's biggest public works projects. The cost has been estimated at $1.2 billion to $2 billion, but proponents say as much as $22.2 billion could flow into development of the region.
The government would turn to private companies to develop the port while giving them multi-year operating contracts. It's a system that has worked to upgrade much of the nation's infrastructure, including highways, airports, railroads and existing ports.
But there are substantial obstacles, among them determining how the port would be governed.
At Punta Colonet, a harbor would have to be dredged deep enough to accommodate several megaships at once. A breakwater, 10 to 20 berths, roads, housing and public buildings are planned where none exist today. The government also wants a 180-mile rail line to the border. An airport specializing in cargo service is being discussed.
Within seven years, Punta Colonet could be processing the equivalent of a million 20-foot-long containers annually, 6 million by 2025. TEU, or 20-foot equivalent units, is a standard measurement in the shipping industry to quantify container traffic. One 20-foot-long container equals one TEU, while one 40-foot-long container equals two.
The volume predicted for Colonet is comparable to that at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are the largest on North America's West Coast. Together, they handled $200 billion worth of cargo, or 13 million TEUs, last year.
Mexico's Punta Colonet project also would create a new city in Baja California.
Port and related activities are expected to spawn relatively well-paid jobs and absorb some of the migrants who continually move into Baja California. The development might promote industrial growth in other sectors, too, including aerospace, electronics and information technology.
Roberto Diaz, a consultant and former Baja California official who has put together a planning model, believes the new port city whether called Colonet or something else will be home to 250,000 residents by 2025.
The proposed port, one of Mexico's biggest public works projects, could bring as much as $22.2 billion in development of the region.
|
Interest in creating a port at Punta Colonet has sprouted in several key circles.
Global shipping companies, frustrated with backlogs at West Coast ports and especially at Long Beach and Los Angeles, are driving the project. Several appealed to the Mexican government last year to spur development of a new port in Baja California.
Firms such as Nippon Yusen K.K., Japan's biggest shipping line; MaerskSeaLand, the world's biggest cargo line; Neptune Orient Lines Ltd.; and Marine Terminals Corp., one of the West Coast's oldest family-owned contract stevedore and terminal operating companies, are among those seeking port alternatives.
"When we look at the totality of the infrastructure that supports the nation's foreign trade, we are deeply concerned that the infrastructure will support even modest growth," said Doug Tilden, president of Marine Terminals Corp.
Retail leaders Wal-Mart and Costco Wholesale are also looking to Mexico as a conduit to get speedier delivery of their goods.
Graphic: Baja port plans |
And this year, Baja California Gov. Eugenio Elorduy Walther gave the go-ahead for a port feasibility study by Hutchison Port Holdings, the operator of Ensenada's cargo and cruise ship operations; and U.S. railroad company Union Pacific. Mike Power, executive director of Hutchison's Ensenada operations, said the study would be completed late this year.
Ensenada's cargo operations, he noted, mainly serve Baja California's maquiladora and agricultural industries. Any new venture by Hong Kong-based Hutchison, the world's largest terminal developer and operator, would focus on moving goods to the U.S. interior.
"The containerized imports that come into ports on the U.S. West Coast, 50 (percent) to 60 percent go to the other side of the United States," Power said. "It's really that market that we're analyzing as an opportunity."
One consideration for Hutchison, which has Mexican terminal operations at Lázaro Cárdenas, Manzanillo and Veracruz, is whether it wants to participate in development of a new port in Baja California when it is undertaking an expansion at Lázaro Cárdenas. That terminal in linked by rail to the United States and can move containers to Houston in the same amount of time it takes to move items from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, Power said.
Nevertheless, he said, the number of Asian cargo shipments is expanding so much that each year a new port the size of Seattle's is needed just to handle the increase.
"On the face of it, the business exists," Power said. "There's massive volume on the West Coast, and there's not much expansion going on."
Congestion at Long Beach and Los Angeles over the past three years has cost shipping companies as much as $300,000 a week in salaries and fuel while vessels sat offshore as long as 14 days.
The backlogs have spurred dredging and construction projects at ports from Alaska to Central America. Even Panama is building a $1 billion megaport at the Pacific Ocean entrance to the Panama Canal.
But the upgrades are limited and expected to offer little relief in handling the surge in cargo coming from across the Pacific.
A recent Penn State survey of container port capacity found that most ports are addressing the overcrowding by focusing on increasing productivity rather than physical growth. It warned that operations on the West Coast might be underestimating the rise in container volume over the next decade by as much as 6 million TEUs a year.
Meanwhile, cargo traffic from East Asia is increasing 15 percent annually, with nearly 57 percent of that volume from China alone. Elimination of global textile quotas last January is expected to boost clothing shipments even more. By 2020, according to industry estimates, cargo from Asia is expected to double.
New ports are being built in China that are handling the vast amount of outbound cargo with ease, but their counterparts in North America are struggling.
To prevent the backlogs of previous years during peak shipping season from July 4 to just before Christmas, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have extended their hours and days of operation and hired more workers. But the ports at Los Angeles and Long Beach can absorb only a fraction of the additional shipments. Expansion also is complicated by community opposition. The ports are the region's biggest source of air pollution.
Southern California port officials worry about losses in jobs and revenue if shipping traffic shifts to competing regions.
"We've heard about a port there," said Port of Los Angeles spokeswoman Theresa Adams Lopez. "But there's a lot of ducks that have to be put in a row. . . . There's plenty of cargo to go around, but the amount of infrastructure that is needed would be huge. So it will be some time before it's built."
A new generation of jumbo ships also will strain West Coast operations. Not so long ago, a big container ship was one capable of carrying 6,000 TEUs. Today, ships of 7,500 to 8,000 TEUs are becoming commonplace in the Pacific. Many of the world's largest shipping companies have them on order.
The new megaships are so large, with containers stacked 18 wide across their decks, that loading and unloading one can take up to three days, even with the fastest available cranes.
They're far too big to fit through the Panama Canal, and they ride so deep in the water that they can't be handled at several West Coast ports, including the Port of San Diego, which is not deep enough to handle the full range of current cargo ships.
With a harbor that could handle megaships, it's estimated that a port at Punta Colonet would be able to handle nearly one-seventh of Los Angeles' current volume by 2012.
Mexican officials will gauge corporate response to its request for proposals and by next year take bids from companies that want to develop the project, said port director Jaurequi. A number of business partnerships could be involved, with each group building separate terminals, he said.
Construction would take at least five years.
"You're looking at building a very extensive infrastructure," he said.
The project already has prompted business activity in the area.
Prices for land at Colonet, owned mostly by small ejido communal groups, reportedly have soared from 5 cents a square meter to $5.
Two former governors are backing ventures that would dovetail with the port project.
Ernesto Ruffo Appel reportedly is behind an effort to develop a nearby airport, estimated to cost $1.75 billion. And Roberto de la Madrid, together with former Atlantic Richfield Chairman Robert O. Anderson, is leading an effort to transform nearby Punta Santo Tomas into a $2 billion energy center that would support activity at Punta Colonet. Included would be a liquefied natural gas receiving terminal, at least one power plant and a desalination facility.
"It's a new development model," consultant Diaz said of the Punta Colonet and Santo Tomas projects, noting that much of the basic planning still needs to be done. "It will be one of the most important economic centers along the West Coast. It will impact the future development of Baja California."
Diane Lindquist: (619) 293-1812; diane.lindquist@uniontrib.com
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.