The challenge of a United North America

Ottowa Citizen ^ | Saturday, July 15, 2006 | Margret Kopala

[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.

[sergeantdave]

What are the mechanics of establishing this "North American Community"?

Will some kind of regional planning commission be set up to write rules, enforce those rules and judge the rules? If so, I'm against it. I don't want any kind of unelected commission set up to write law. Any laws concerning trade need to go through congress for up or down votes. The last thing we need is an EU style bureaucracy determining the size and shape of cucumbers.

[stopem]

There will be NO Border security!!

"Less than two months after voting overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico, the Senate yesterday voted against providing funds to build it."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060714-120633-1188r.htm

[wolfcreek]

If someone manages to put together a Ping list, count me in!

[xzins]

I have no problem with a united north America.

I will support the United States of (North) America under the constitution of our united states. There was no law that said the USA had to be limited to the original 13 states. That we now have 50 is proof of that. Therefore, it's also true that there is no law that says the USA has to be limited to 50 states.

In fact, to me, it appears manifest destiny that the provinces of our current canada also be states with the USA. The state of British Columbia, of Quebec, etc., would be a natural addition to our nation.

Likewise with the various states of Mexico and the countries of Latin America and the islands of the Caribbean.

The Monroe Doctrine said to keep your hands off those places.

I agree. They are too proximate not to be united.

And that under the best constitution ever written by freedom loving peoples.

[mo]

I agre with you 100%. The utility of a united NA is one UNDER the US Constitution...unfortunatley, IMHO, many of the driving force behind the attempts to unite NA, see their opportunity in forcing the Constitution into submission.....and at the forefront of this is the immigration issue in the USA. It will decide whether we ARE a nation under rule of law, or whether we have degenerated to where the application of the law depends upon political correctness...

[dljordan]

"Does that sound good to you?"

Sure, I love disease and poverty.

[dljordan]

"I will support the United States of (North) America under the constitution of our united states. There was no law that said the USA had to be limited to the original 13 states. That we now have 50 is proof of that. Therefore, it's also true that there is no law that says the USA has to be limited to 50 states."

That's true but where did this wonderful idea come from? The financial and political elite seem to be pushing this for some reason. Why? Do you think they're doing this because they love their fellow citizens? No, they want this because it somehow gives them an advantage over the rest of us. It will cause chaos, crime and disease to be imported to the US and the middle class will be toast.

[mjolnir]

The Ottawa Citizen and the Toronto Star are pro-socialism, anti-free market papers, and Jerome Corsi is by no means an"arch-conservative" ebcause he helped the Swift Vets expose Kerry any more than David Brock was a conservative because he exposed Anita Hill.

Anything any of them say should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

For one thing, the CFR simply does not have influence Corsi claims. If it did, the United States would not have gone to war in Iraq.

The idea that the Mexican government would ever give up its sovereignty to join an enlarged nation-state dominated primarily by the United States and secondarily by Canada approaches metaphysical impossibility.

As John Hawkins (an actual conservative) puts it:

Really? So, President Bush, who will be leaving office in early 2009, will be unilaterally throwing out the Constitution and creating an American, Mexican, and Canadian Super State that would be almost universally opposed by the citizens of the United States? That would be a pretty neat trick to pull off, especially given that Bush can't even arrange to put a group of terrorists in front of a military tribunal without having the Supreme Court get in his way.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2006_06_25.PHP#005975

[xzins]

There is a constitutional process for statehood. It cannot be rammed through.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I will support the United States of (North) America under the constitution of our united states."

You obviously fail to understand. It is EXACTLY the "Constitution of the United States" that is intended to be gotten rid of. The "statists" have been trying to convert the USA into a "parliamentary democracy" for decades.

Their "preferred model" is Europe, and has been ever since Woodrow Wilson was president.

[xzins]

I'm sure there are lots of things I don't understand. But I do understand what's going on here.

What I said was what I would support, not what I wouldn't support.

I repeat. I will support a union based on our constitution.

[Hawk1976]

If it is true that either the citizens of the states of Mexico or Canada wish to be under the same government as the Anerican citizens then we have several processes for that.

They could legally immigrate.

They could also petition their governments to file a petition with the United States congress requesting statehood.

All this extra-nnational trade organization is absolute nonsense. The only law higher than the constitution in the United States is God's law.

[arasina]

That's right. You know those in the United States government just want what's best for us. So much principle and integrity in both houses of congress inspires respect and our total trust. /sarc

[roofgoat]

"There is a constitutional process for statehood. It cannot be rammed through."

yeah right. Just like Voters have a say - until a Judge....

[dljordan]

"There is a constitutional process for statehood. It cannot be rammed through."

I think you're naive if you believe any kind of constitutional considerations will stop these globalists. I hope you're right though.

[DumpsterDiver]

ping

[hedgetrimmer]

More meetings scheduled for this fall. Since when does the US government have 'ministers'?


North American nations announce trade collaboration

Canada, Mexico and the U.S. launched the North American Competitiveness Council on June 15, 2006. U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba, and Canadian Prime Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier met with North American business leaders to launch the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) officially. Earlier this year, U.S. President George Bush had announced the formation of such a council as a priority to his commitment to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

The SPP ministers from all three nations will meet with the NACC in early fall 2006 to discuss their priorities, updates to work plans, and new initiatives. The SPP released a report of its recent accomplishments (March-June 2006), which included coordinating joint work on regulatory processes, promoting best practices, and enhancing information sharing throughout the regulatory process. It also discussed the ongoing liberalization of rules of origin to help improve the competitiveness of industries by reducing transaction costs, facilitating the cross-border trade of goods, and enabling exporters to more easily qualify for duty free treatment. In May the three countries agreed to a third round of changes affecting more than $30 billion in trilateral trade with an implementation goal of 2007.


http://www.modplas.com/inc/mparticle.php?section=eweekly&thefilename=eweekly06012006_09

[hedgetrimmer]

What are the mechanics of establishing this "North American Community"?

They use "working groups"(globalese for unelected council) to set up "frameworks" (globalese for government).

[hedgetrimmer]

For one thing, the CFR simply does not have influence Corsi claims

Well, you are wrong. CFR members populate the federal government. The CFR regularly testifies before Congress pushing their agenda. CFR members participate in the unconstiutional "working groups" that are establishing the North American Union. Former Bush staffers are now fellows at the CFR.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks