Posted on 10/07/2006 3:56:30 AM PDT by Man50D
WASHINGTON – There are mixed signals coming from Mexico about the fate of a proposed mega-port in Baja California for mainly Chinese goods that would be shipped on rail lines and "NAFTA superhighways" running through the U.S. to Canada.
The port at Punta Colonet, planned as a major container facility to transfer Asian goods into America's heartland, got at least a temporary setback when a Mexican businessman announced a competing project in which he was seeking to secure mineral rights in the area.
Gabriel Chavez, originally one of the principal movers behind the port plan, now says there are significant amounts of titanium and iron to be mined offshore – a project he considers more important than the port.
Mexican ports czar Cesar Patricio Reyes placed a moratorium on further work toward port planning for three or four months while the government explores ways to make everyone happy.
It is no secret the Mexican government is still committed to the port plan. A map from the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies shows the proposed goods route into a North American community.
According to transportation officials in Arizona, one of the sites considered for a rail line from Punta Colonet, the Mexican government has released an official directive stating its intention to create a new marine facility there -- about 150 miles south of the U.S. border.
The port at Punta Colonet, when completed, is expected to rival the biggest West Coast ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, both heavily congested now.
Bringing goods into a Mexican port would mean lower costs for foreign shippers because of cheaper labor and less restrictive environmental regulations.
Hutchison Ports Mexico, a subsidiary of the Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., is keeping reports about progress on the venture close to the vest.
Only recently has the port become a source of controversy in the U.S. as Americans begin questioning highway and rail projects criss-crossing the country – many of which are designed to carry product from Mexico to the U.S. and Canada on the so-called "NAFTA superhighways."
Resentment is building inside the U.S. because of what appear to be secretive plans made outside normal government policymaking channels about immigration, border policies, transportation and integration of the three North American nations.
Transportation Secretary Maria Cino has promised to release plans within months for a one-year, NAFTA pilot program permitting Mexican truckers beyond the limited commercial zone to which they are currently restricted.
The program will likely involve about 100 Mexican trucking companies, the Department of Transportation says.
Under the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA – the borders were to open partially to truckers from both countries in 1995. Full access was promised by 2000. Because of the restrictions on Mexican trucks, the Mexican government has imposed limits on U.S. truckers.
The U.S. restrictions were placed by the Clinton administration in response to demands from the Teamsters union, which said Mexican trucks posed safety and environmental risks. Currently, the U.S. permits Mexican truckers only in commercial zones close to the border that extend no further than 20 miles from Mexico.
While the American Trucking Association supports opening the border, other unions have joined in opposition with the Teamsters. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association came out this month in opposition to any Mexican truck pilot program.
Todd Spencer, the association's executive vice president, said the program would jeopardize safety on U.S. roads and would lead to an influx of cheap Mexican labor.
"A move by the U.S. Department of Transportation to open U.S. roadways to Mexican trucks puts the interest of foreign trade and cheap labor ahead of everything else, including highway safety, homeland security and the well being of hardworking Americans," Spencer said.
In a letter to the Interstate Trade Commission, Spencer wrote: "The net effect of admission of Mexican trucks into the U.S. marketplace would undoubtedly be negative. The supposed benefits to consumers from speculative reductions in shipping rates would be offset by the societal costs that are difficult to measure, but are easy to identify."
Raising more suspicions that such plans are leading to a future integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, a high-level, top-secret meeting of the North American Forum took place this month in Banff – with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."
Despite "confirmed" participants including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, former Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner, North American Union guru Robert Pastor, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Energy Secretary and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and top officials of both Mexico and Canada, there has been no press coverage of the event. The only media member scheduled to appear at the event, according to documents obtained by WND, was the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady.
The event was organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada West Foundation, an Alberta think-tank that promotes closer economic integration with the United States.
The Canadian event is just the latest of a series of meetings, policy papers and directives that have citizens, officials and members of the media wondering whether these efforts represent some sort of coordinated effort to implement a "merger" some have characterized as "NAFTA on steroids."
Last week, government documents released by a Freedom of Information Act request revealed the Bush administration is running what some observers see as a "shadow government" with Mexico and Canada in which the U.S. is crafting a broad range of policy in conjunction with its neighbors to the north and south.
He did.
Texas is such a large state that people don't always know what is going on in other parts of the state. To my knowledge we have never privatized taxes for greedy furriners. IIRC, several years ago someone built a toll road in west Texas which was a total flop. I don't think any taxes were involved but I'll have to check it out.
Houston collects $50 million in profits a year on their toll roads. You bet, Cintra wanted to buy this cash cow. Cintra continues to keep parts of their contracts secret. So much for "transparency". LOL
Failure to find evidence of "privatizing taxes for greedy furriners," whatever that means, is not evidence of Texas being "nearly 100% free of large public/private partnerships."
I didn't say it was. Do you have a comprehension problem?
No, do you have an attention-span problem? Did you forget to what you were responding?
There is a few terms or phrases mentioned on these videos that you may have seen or heard before. I think you'll find them interesting. Got your coffee and notepads ready?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvEqg_UlGaA&NR
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=105345;show_parent=1
Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush on the New World Order. Who would have thought these two would think alike? LOL Makes you wonder who was in the audience and who this speech was intended for. We are going to be forced to support Lou Dobbs as he is the only one speaking out for the middle class.
No, I didn't forget who I was responding to. According to this website the PPP of Texas has only been around for a few years.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/services/texas_turnpike_authority/pub_priv_partnerships.htm
Most of the counties have county road depts who have paved the county roads just like the city road departments and state road departments. In your mind, does this constitute a PPP?
Admit it. You don't even know what a PPP is.
I do now because I read the UN website about them.
I notice you didn't have any smart remarks about post #415. Clinton and Bush collecting money for the UN. I guess you like listening to the Clinton speech on interdependency and the new world order. He praises George H.W. Bush. The inventors of "free trade" LOL.
Huh? My comment #420 was a direct response to #415:
You'd have to ask someone from Texas. My guess is that, with all the natural gas (and other) pipelines crossing the state, your comment that Texas "has been nearly 100% free of large public/private partnerships" is off the mark.We've been discussing (if that is the proper term--I'm afraid not) #415 most of the morning. Did you forget (again)? What does the UN have to do with the above? Are you trying to change the subject?
Just watching Clinton turned my stomach.... but how similar it is and reminded me of this part of Pastor's testimony:
"NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.
This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements. It should be an advisor to the three leaders but also a public voice and symbol of North America. It should evaluate ways to facilitate economic integration, producing specific proposals on continental issues such as harmonizing environmental and labor standards and forging a competition policy.
The U.S. Congress should also merge the U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian interparliamentary groups into a single “North American Parliamentary Group.” A third institution should be a “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” NAFTA established ad hoc dispute panels, but it has become difficult to find experts who do not have a conflict of interest to arbitrate conflicts. A permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.
Canada and Mexico have long organized their governments to give priority to their bilateral relationships with the United States. Washington alone is poorly organized to address North American issues. To balance U.S. domestic interests with those in the continent, President Bush should appoint a White House adviser for North American affairs. Such a figure would chair a cabinet-level interagency task force on North America. No president can forge a coherent U.S. policy toward North America without such a wholesale reorganization.
For North America’s second decade, there is no higher priority than reducing the economic divide between Mexico and the rest of NAFTA. A true community or even a partnership is simply not possible when the people of one nation earn, on average, one-sixth as much as do people across the border. Mexico’s underdevelopment is a threat to its stability, to its neighbors, and to the future of integration.
Europe demonstrated that the gap could be narrowed significantly in a relatively short period with good policies and significant aid. The Council Task Force proposed serious reforms by Mexico coupled with a North American Investment Fund, which was also proposed by Senator John Cornyn. This is a far-sighted initiative that deserves the support of this Committee and Congress. I have written a report explaining the need for such a Fund and the way it could work. (See www.american.edu/cnas/publications)
North American governments can learn from the EU’s efforts to establish EU Educational and Research Centers in the United States. Centers for North American Studies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico would help people in all three countries to understand the problems and the potential of an integrated North America— and to think of themselves as North Americans. Scholarships should encourage North American students to study in each other’s country. Until a new consciousness of North America’s promise takes root, many of these proposals will remain impractical."
Did you mean post #415 or #425?
Texas is merely playing catch up with corrupt Northeast states that have had a proliferation of authorities for 50 and more years. Some authorities are valid and helpful but all serve as hiring havens for hacks. To place connected friends and no account kin. My comments are based on living in NY and Massachusetts
I'd like to see some evidence that Texas is playing "catch up." My guess (again, specifically with regard to pipeline infrastructire) is that Texas is rather a "pioneer" in the area.
I answered with post #428.
What does the UN have to do with the above? Are you trying to change the subject?
Like I said, I looked up PPP's on the UN website. You must not have listened to Clinton's speech on "interdependency" and the new world order praising George H. W. Bush.
o I was really talking about 418 and referred to your post as seeing and hearing it. Rudeboy is not going to discuss these posts as he might have to admit to a "little socialism". Here we have the inventors or NAFTA, Clinton and Bush. Some people can't connect the dots.... NAFTA, trans texas corridor, one world order, UN.
We've returned to the "timeline problem" I mentioned on this thread earlier. World Net Daily does a fine job of "discovering" something that's been in existence for a long, long time and framing it as a recent (and treacherous) development. You shouldn't do the same.
Oh, please. I prefer to make certain the goalposts have moved first. LOL
IMO, there is probably a little bit of corruption everywhere when taxpayer funds are involved.
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.