Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus"

IRC Americas ^ | August 24, 2005 | By Miguel Pickard

[Conservative Firster]

“I would like you [of the press] to understand the magnitude of what this means. It is transcendent, it’s something that goes well beyond the relationship we have had up to now.” —President Vicente Fox, regarding NAFTA Plus, onboard the presidential plane returning to Mexico from George W. Bush’s Crawford ranch, March 2005.

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has been in effect almost 12 years and a new stage, NAFTA Plus, is in the works, referred to as “deep integration,” particularly in Canada. The elites of the three NAFTA countries (Canada, the United States, and Mexico) have been aggressively moving forward to build a new political and economic entity. A “trinational merger” is underway that leaps beyond the single market that NAFTA envisioned and, in many ways, would constitute a single state, called simply, “North America.”

Note: long article

[hedgetrimmer]

From the FTAA:

[RECOGNIZING the broad differences in the levels of development and size of the economies of the region and the resulting need to create opportunities for all Parties,[ and especially the smaller economies], to participate in taking advantage jointly and fully in the benefits deriving from hemispheric integration; ]

Now the evidence is straight from the two "free trade" agreements. You say there is no effort to integrate the hemisphere? Laughable..

[hedgetrimmer]

Venezuela is not going to sign any sort of free trade deal so long as Chavez is in power

Not so. Venezuela is a full fledged member of the FTAA.

National Sources of Information on FTAA countries

FTAA Inventory of National Practices on Standards, Technical Regulations and Conformity Assessment in the Western Hemisphere for Venezuela

[hedgetrimmer]

Venezuela is not going to sign any sort of free trade deal so long as Chavez is in power. I'm not familiar with Ecuador's politics, but what does that have to do with trade? Columbia is a staunch American ally, despite its problems. What do Peru's insurgent problems have to do with trade, anyway?

As a "free trader" you should know. Its called open borders. Do you think a free country should have an open border with a communist country? The WTO does. In fact as a condition of GAT and the WTO "member states"(not countries because national sovereignty gets in the way of "free trade") must allow for the "free movement of persons". Look it up, its called Mode 4. Third world countries love this because they can send their "excess workforce" to "rich countries" and get back billions of dollars in remittances in return. Check out Mode 4 and the Doha round coming up. Africa has a few million excess workers they'd like to send here.

But they'll have to compete with the CAFTA countries, because we already have a "free trade" deal with them. The government isn't done buttering up Africa with AIDS money to negotiate a "free trade" deal with them, but its in the works and coming soon.

Before you say, great more "Free trade", do you think Vermont and Michigan need anymore Somalians? Somalia is a terrorist nation you know.

[hedgetrimmer]

Fecha: 12/16/04 ...BACK...

Tussie, Diana, coord.; Botto, Mercedes, coord. “El ALCA y las cumbres de las Américas: ¿una nueva relación público-privada?” (The FTAA and the Summits of the Americas: A New Public-Private Relation?). -- Buenos Aires: Biblos, 2003. -- 295 p. -- Spanish.

Since its beginning in 1994, the initiative of building a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) generated opposing positions in the governments of the continent: while some of them consider it a solution to instability and growth problems, others consider it the worst of all possible evils.

Without doubt, it is an ambitious and controversial initiative, not only because of the number of countries and the economic and social asymmetries between them, but also because of the variety and the tone of the proposed goals. To the goal of liberalizing trade and investments in 2005 were also added the goals of consolidating democracy in the region, increasing the access to education and fighting against the new threatens to safety.

One of the innovations of the FTAA is the opening of negotiation and consultation channels to business actors and civil society at the same time that the negotiations of rules and definition of the scope of hemispheric integration and cooperation are taking place. To what extent this new public-private interaction changes the secret and exclusive tradition that has characterized international negotiations in Latin America? Does it help or make difficult consensus between governments and sectors? Does it introduce new national and thematic topics and standards? Which is the role of actors and transnational nets in this convergence?

A team of researchers of different institutions of the region, coordinated by the “Programa de Estudios sobre Instituciones Económicas Internacionales” (PIEI: Studies Programme on International Economic Institutions) of FLACSO - Argentina and supported by the Ford Foundation, analyses the scope and impact of this new dialectic between governments, markets and civil society. The analysis is made from an original point of view by crossing the national, thematic and acting approaches that provide a wide and complete vision of the tendencies to convergence and diversity of the globalization process.

http://www.aladi.org/nsfaladi/integracion.nsf/inicio2004i

[Nowhere Man]

"Free trade" is an enormous wealth redistribution system that transfers money out of the United States to the third world.

Basically there is no such thing as "free trade," basically it is just another way of bringing about slave wages by greedy global elites who want to control the general public. As Michael Savage aid one night, "how can you compete against slave labour?" Our people will face a future where we will have to compete against people who have hte choice of working for a few cents or getting a 7.62mm x 39mm round shot in the back of their head.

[Nowhere Man]

No I didn't. Only tavern-sitting populist yokels of all stripes watch that show.

"South Park" was funny for a while, but it is too libertarian for me. Anywhoo, I'm more into "Adult Swim" anyhoo, especially, "The Oblongs," "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," "The Venture Brothers," and "The Braak Show." B-)



DR-CAFTA? I prefer Dr. Girlfriend!!! B-)



Frylock is the best. "South Park" is passe.

Nuff fun, if I may get really serious, it is time for:


America 2010, coming to a movie theatre near you!!!!

[Nowhere Man]

We have soviet union style speech laws and housing blocs going up in all our cities under "smart growth".

We have a bunch of politicians who want to merge the entire western hemipshere with all the other socialist, communist and totalitarian dictatorships here with the expectation that the beleagured American taxpayer will be willing to pick up the bill to social engineer these countries into something that they're not.

If you think this is great shape for a free country you are sadly mistaken.

I remember back in 1984, as a high school student, I pondered, "what if the USSR became like the US and the US became like the USSR?" Maybe we will find out if this keeps going. I have nothing against a social safety net but when these illegals come across to use it as a hammock, that hurts us all. Not only we suffer in our trade imbalance, loss of jobs and lower wages, this will be a fourth blow to our country.

[Nowhere Man]

You can't defend your position, so you want to throw insults too?

When they do that, you know they don't have a leg left to stand on.

[mississippi red-neck]

They traded us equal rights for protected class. They traded us their poorest,most illiterate and desperate people so Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Bank of America could benefit.

Nice job HT. Yep! The New World Order.

The place that consists of two groups. The Bosses and those who work for them.

The place where people cease to be human, just either assets or liabilities.

There are no rights just rules,quotas,and profit margins.

If it's good for business it's good for everyone.

[hedgetrimmer]

Thanks.

[hedgetrimmer]

Maybe we will find out if this keeps going.

Too late for large areas of California.

[Modernman]

You don't understand the goal of "free trade" at all, or you are ignoring it.

The goal of free trade is, well, free trade.

CONTRIBUTE to hemispheric integration and provide an impetus toward establishing the Free Trade Area of the Americas;

You see the word "integrate" and conclude it means some sort of shadowy plot for One World Government.

Rational people see the word and look at the context- a trade agreement- and conclude that it means integration of the markets of all of the member states.

[Modernman]

As a "free trader" you should know. Its called open borders. Do you think a free country should have an open border with a communist country?

We don't share a border with Venezuela.

In fact as a condition of GAT and the WTO "member states"(not countries because national sovereignty gets in the way of "free trade") must allow for the "free movement of persons".

I'm fine with allowing flexible movement of workers around the world. What is wrong with that? That is not the same as open borders.

Before you say, great more "Free trade", do you think Vermont and Michigan need anymore Somalians?

The Somalis were brought here through refugee programs or through regular immigration. They were not brought here due to trade deals.

Of course, you still haven't addressed our questions: If free trade is killing out economy, why do we have 4% growth, 5% unemployment, a rising standard of living, the highest rate of home ownership ever, rising industrial output etc. etc?

Can you point to any economic indicator that supports your claim that things are getting worse?

[hedgetrimmer]

First of all, let us recognize that the general vision and strategic orientations of the Summit of the Americas provide nothing less than the comprehensive framework and organizing principles for the social, economic and political relations b>among the community of nations of the hemisphere in the XXI century. The FTAA is not just one more initiative among the 23 initiatives launched in the Summit of the Americas. It is the pillar, the foundation of the grand project of hemispheric integration contained in the Summit vision. The Declaration of the Americas is a historic understanding on shared value and objectives and on the convenience of working together to achieve them. We have understood that it is through cooperation and integration that we can reach the living standards that we want for our people in the future. This is what has allowed and shall permit the conciliation of the different interests in favor of collective progress, in favor of sustainable development, in favor of democracy and in favor of the wellbeing of all. In addition, the last decades have witnessed important changes in the development strategies in Latin America.

Fourth Western Hemisphere Trade Ministerial and Business Forum
San José, Costa Rica - March 1998

"free trade" IS NOT ABOUT TRADE. It is about a "framework" which is a UN globalese word for government that controls the social, economic and political relations of nations.

If "free trade" was about trade, it would be about tariffs and nothing more.

[Modernman]

First of all, let us recognize that the general vision and strategic orientations of the Summit of the Americas provide nothing less than the comprehensive framework and organizing principles for the social, economic and political relations among the community of nations of the hemisphere in the XXI century.

You see something sinister in this passage? You seem to be looking for boogeymen that do not exist. All this statement is saying is that the various trade agreements amongst the Western Hemisphere nations will serve as the basis for relations among the nations.

Trade treaties are really nothing new. They simply deal with the relations between nations. If nations do not like the terms of a treay, they can withdraw.

[hedgetrimmer]

The Summit of the Americas is an international secretariat not a "trade" organization. "free trade" AGREEMENTS are treaties, congress has declared them agreements. "free trade" is not agreements among nations, but agreements among the "member states" of the WTO.

You are so mixed up.

[hedgetrimmer]

Oh and a "framework" is a UN globalese word for government. When a supranational bureaucracy starts setting up a "new government" where the US is only a "member state" with a "permanent minister" who was never elected by anyone, and that bureaucracy is influencing federal policy on immigration and remittances, you are effectively talking treason against the American people, not "free trade".

[Modernman]

The Summit of the Americas is an international secretariat not a "trade" organization.

And your point is?

"free trade" AGREEMENTS are treaties, congress has declared them agreements.

What are you trying to say here?

"free trade" is not agreements among nations, but agreements among the "member states" of the WTO.

Again, what are you trying to get at here? All the WTO member states are nations, AFAIK. They have entered into a multilateral, rather than bilateral, agreement. Why do you consider such an arrangement to be any more sinister than, say, NATO, which is also a multilateral agreement?

[Modernman]

Oh and a "framework" is a UN globalese word for government.

If you say so. What exactly do you base this conclusion upon?

When a supranational bureaucracy starts setting up a "new government"

What new government would that be? AFAIK, the only governments that have power over me these days is the Federal Government of the USA and the government of the District of Columbia (where I live).

where the US is only a "member state"

"Member state" is just a term of art used in the text of various treaties. There is nothing sinister about that term.

with a "permanent minister" who was never elected by anyone

Why would we need to directly elect the head of an international organization? Did you directly vote for the head of NATO?

and that bureaucracy is influencing federal policy on immigration and remittances

Anyone is free to try to convince the American government to change its policies. Why do you consider this to be somehow evil?

you are effectively talking treason against the American people, not "free trade".

How does anything you have described here equal treason ? Please be specific. Following your logic, if the Canadian ambassador to the US tries to convince our government to change a certain policy, anyone who agrees with him is comitting treason.

[hedgetrimmer]

Do you work in government? Just curious.