Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The challenge of a United North America
Ottowa Citizen ^ | Saturday, July 15, 2006 | Margret Kopala

Posted on 07/15/2006 2:40:20 AM PDT by Trupolitik

Hockey may be Canada's national sport but now that we're all North Americans, local ties, it seems, are the casualty of international competitiveness. It's happening again with Canada's mining giants Inco and Falconbridge.

If North American integration confuses loyalties, it also rallies those on the further reaches of the ideological spectrum. When the Canadian prime minister recently visited the U.S. president, Linda McQuaig coyly suggested in her Toronto Star column that the question isn't how well these two conservative soul mates get along, but "What are they up to?"

In the U.S., arch-conservative Jerome R. Corsi, in his Human Events Online column, has no doubts. "President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada," he huffed on May 19. The blueprint, he continued, "was laid out in a May 2005 report entitled 'Building a North American Community,' published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations." And the modus operandi for this blueprint with a target enactment date of 2010? None other than The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America signed by Canada, Mexico and the United States at Waco, Texas in March 2005.

Is this a replay of the free-trade debate in 1988?

The issues are similar, with at least a few overlapping players. For instance, through the offices of the independent U.S. think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales, elite business, policy and scholarly interests are today's prime movers. Their task force, whose Canadian chair is former finance minister John Manley, produced the report entitled "Building a North American Community."

Published shortly after the announcement of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, its central premise 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 within which the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly and safe ..."

Make no mistake, though, about the real genesis of the movement toward greater North American integration, where crisis matters more than lobbyists or think tanks.

In 1994, it was the Mexican peso crisis that revealed the first of many institutional failings of NAFTA and spurred American political scientist Robert A. Pastor, now a member of the CFR task force, to write Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New.

Then Sept. 11, 2001, pushed governments into action. Trinational summits at Waco and Cancun tell the rest of the story.

To be sure, the CFR task force is a step ahead of governments and its influence is undeniably strong. And in a paper whose dominant themes are harmonization, mobility and oversight, the implications for Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are undeniably huge. Its recommendation to establish a permanent dispute-resolutions tribunal, for instance, could have a profound effect on the protracted agony of softwood lumber disputes (including the current deal) and a snowballing inventory of litigation launched under NAFTA's Chapters 11 and 19.

McQuaig and Corsi are right. This paper should be widely read, and not just because of trade issues. As the continental project trundles forward, must our loyalties remain at sea?

National sovereignty concerns may be addressed with precise legal language and government-to-government structures with clear lines of accountability, but issues about Canadian unity are less easily addressed. Stronger north-south ties may further weaken tenuous east-west ties, but as the Mumbai and Mideast bombings forcefully teach, security is a powerful incentive to strengthen all ties.

If institutional integrity is the key to successful co-operation in North America, Canada's institutions can be no less sturdy. Only then will our champions have the grounding necessary to flourish and make their mark, singly or as part of the larger team, in an increasingly troubled world.


TOPICS: Conspiracy
KEYWORDS: blackhelicopters; border; bushatemylunch; cfr; cuckooforcocoapuffs; cuespookymusic; globalism; highwaytohell; intergration; jeromecorsi; kookism; lifeisahighway; mommabushhitme; morethorzineplease; mywayorhighway; nafta; nationalism; northamerica; rightwingmoonbats; securityprosperity; soveriengty; spp; texascorridor; tinfoil; ttc; union; waaawaaa; weredoomed; yabadabadoooo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last
I am curious if the Free Republic Adins will put this in the "weird" section of General Discussion. The Ottowa Citizen is correct in stating that this issue should be the subject of our greater public discourse.

They make this plain by stating:

McQuaig and Corsi are right. This paper should be widely read, and not just because of trade issues. As the continental project trundles forward, must our loyalties remain at sea?

National sovereignty concerns may be addressed with precise legal language and government-to-government structures with clear lines of accountability

CFR Study: Building a North American Union http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

Security and Prosperity Partenrship Agreement: http://www.spp.gov/

1 posted on 07/15/2006 2:40:27 AM PDT by Trupolitik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik

National sovereignty....what's that?


2 posted on 07/15/2006 2:42:10 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey

I suppose we are supposed to believe it is the "ability" to contractually consent away the jurisdiction of constitutional courts in lieu of an international dispute board, even though neither the treaty, the dispute courts, nor were the officers of said courts approved by the 2/3 of the Senate.


3 posted on 07/15/2006 2:45:21 AM PDT by Trupolitik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik
Published shortly after the announcement of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, its central premise 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 within which the movement of people, products and capital will be legal, orderly and safe ..."

My God, that's terrible.

4 posted on 07/15/2006 2:50:30 AM PDT by Darkwolf377
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
If you read the whole study it exlains the "orderly process" as being the "freeflow of PEOPLE and goods". That same studies calls for "dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America. Does that sound good to you?
5 posted on 07/15/2006 2:58:05 AM PDT by Trupolitik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik

is there a North American Union ping list?


6 posted on 07/15/2006 2:59:31 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( http://www.answersingenesis.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

Not that I am aware of. Do you know how to do that?


7 posted on 07/15/2006 3:00:16 AM PDT by Trupolitik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik

Yeah, I'm sure the US will just sign on and shrug it's shoulders and say "Ah, they're over that whole 9-11 thing, those Muslim terrorists who might sneak in from Canada". That's why this must be STOPPED, STOPPED!


8 posted on 07/15/2006 3:01:13 AM PDT by Darkwolf377
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik

Rather than copying the Europeans (there is very little to gain from Europe currently), Mexico and Canada should be encouraged to become part of the United States; for Mexico there could be status of territory longer, until it reaches a status close to the United States (Alabama is the lowest, so that state could be used as a threshold).


9 posted on 07/15/2006 3:04:40 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( http://www.answersingenesis.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik
Building a North American Union:

Article IV, section 3:"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

10 posted on 07/15/2006 3:09:02 AM PDT by Jim Noble (And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

I agree. Even if we disregard the constitutional issues, the free flow of Mexican ctitizens to the US and Canada will wreck the middle class. Also, with little exposure and understanding to the fundamentals of our democratic institutions we cannot insure they would be good stewards of our Republic.


11 posted on 07/15/2006 3:09:17 AM PDT by Trupolitik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik
Mr. Robinson could have some protocol? Other than that, it seems that simply an advertisement of a pinglist is posted on threads (as you have probably seen) and people are listed someplace and then for pertinent threads the list is copied and pasted into the To: part of a posting comment.

But there are obviously more knowledgeable people who have pinglist who would know.

12 posted on 07/15/2006 3:10:53 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( http://www.answersingenesis.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

But if Mexico (and Canada to some extent) were to become part of the united states, the Democrats, at the behest of the "watermelons" will make them stop Oil production, Mining and Timber operations.

Then we'd be completely 'up the creek and no paddles in sight' rather than just mostly 'up the creek'.


13 posted on 07/15/2006 3:17:48 AM PDT by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

While the United States would probably turn more toward liberalism (especially if Mexico's lands are given statehood before full development; Mexicans are generally very socially conservative, and probably would become economically if they develop), the country could gain a lot, too.


14 posted on 07/15/2006 3:21:48 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( http://www.answersingenesis.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

Not to mention the continued erosion of US court protection for American businesses. Mexican and Canadian "ministers" can out vote us, and even if it is against our National inerest will we be bound by their decision.


15 posted on 07/15/2006 3:23:36 AM PDT by Trupolitik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu; Trupolitik

I have a ping list, and I just have the names listed on my home page. When a thread surfaces, I copy and paste those names in the TO field. Pretty low tech, I think some others have a more advanced method.

But I sure would like to be on this ping list, if one develops...


16 posted on 07/15/2006 3:38:15 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik

These agreements take decisions out of the hands of all of our legislatures an therefore our voters, and into the hands of "appointed ministers". Even if Mexico was as developed as the US and Canada, we would all still lose the ability of each of our voters to dictate our interests. Why must we give up normal nation state relations?


17 posted on 07/15/2006 3:41:59 AM PDT by Trupolitik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik

Canada has a problem. For years they have paid for their social programs by not spending a cent on their military and depending on their "friends" to the south to protect them.

This worked out fine until Canada decided that "they" did not want to be friends with their neighbor to the south. So now they have a problem. What to do. They don't have the money to develop military so I guess their idea is to try to sucker their "friends" to the south into believing that North America should all be one United country with of course....each country having equal say on everything.

George Bush may not fall for this crap but I am sure that any Liberal we elect will.


18 posted on 07/15/2006 3:49:20 AM PDT by when the time is right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hershey
"National sovereignty....what's that?"

Something we had before the Korean crisis. The unencumbered right to declare war.

19 posted on 07/15/2006 3:49:41 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Trupolitik
I can see -- and all free men must thrill to -- the advance of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny! What a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americas, and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific.

I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence. We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge, we pledge that human sympathy -- what our neighbors to the South call an attitude of "simpatico" -- no less than enlightened self-interest will be our guide.

Barry Goldwater, Republican National Convention, San Francisco, 16 July 1964,

20 posted on 07/15/2006 4:36:04 AM PDT by Skylab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson