Posted on 01/17/2006 4:42:27 PM PST by skandalon
When the leaders of Mexico, the United States and Canada announced last March that they had agreed on the terms of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, questions were raised as to what would be the scope of this new accord.
Was the partnership different from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994? Would it be a continuation of NAFTA? Or would it nullify NAFTA and replace it with a more up-to-date relationship between the three countries?
Some of the language used in the documents outlining the partnership reflect new concerns that were not present when NAFTA was signed. The issue of security, the main U.S. government worry since 9/11, is the cornerstone of this new trilateral agreement. Prosperity and economic growth are also addressed, but more as an offshoot of the NAFTA accord.
Referring to security, the most recent document states: “To make North America secure for the future, we need integrated, coordinated and seamless measures in place at, within, and beyond our borders to provide our people and our infrastructure with the highest possible common level of protection from terrorists and other criminal elements, as well as from the common threats of nature.”
Regarding prosperity, it says: “To make North America prosperous for the future, we need to improve the efficiency of the movement of people, goods and services crossing our borders. We must remove barriers to trade, investment, research and education. We must protect our environment and promote the health and safety of our people.”
In Mexico, the trilateral partnership was explained as a sort of a “NAFTA-plus,” or another step in the same direction. Government officials did not see it as contrary to the basic principles of NAFTA. On the contrary, they viewed increased economic integration and security cooperation as necessary to further the basic concepts of the North American bloc.
But a closer reading of the documents shows that the main difference between NAFTA and the new partnership is the degree of clarity regarding the ongoing integration process taking place between the three nations.
NAFTA was presented publicly as a “mere trade agreement” between countries belonging to North America in the same way that the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) is currently being referred to as a trade agreement among nations of the Americas. On the surface that is exactly what it was: A trade agreement.
But appearances do not always coincide with reality. In fact, as a response to the post-Cold War world, a newly-accepted logic emerged that revolved around the need to create regional blocs. These blocs would be based on trade interests, but also on strategic political and global interests as well. The same thinking would be the basis for the creation of other regional trade blocs in Asia, Europe and South America.
The partnership is a big step toward deeper structural integration of the economies and societies of the three countries. The negotiations regarding security are a mirror of this fact. The close cooperation among the security forces of the three countries is a reflection of this growing integration in the region.
Economically speaking something similar is happening. Mexico is the United States’ second trade partner, and it sends 91 percent of all its exports to the domestic U.S. market. Given this level of integration, it is no surprise that conflicts will develop between the two nations.
For example, a Mexican is killed by the Border Patrol and Mexico feels things are getting out of hand. When the Secretary of Economy Sergio García de Alba asked his counterparts in the United States and Canada to renegotiate the criteria for the opening of the bean and maize market and received no response, favorable or unfavorable, bad feelings emerge. These are not “mere trade issues,” but the result of integration in the broadest sense.
It is not healthy to ignore such substantial issues provoked by the integration of three very heterogeneous economies and societies. What will happen when we discuss a single currency and common tax or fiscal structures and legislation, or unified armed forces?
It is crucial to open up the discussion to business and other political forces in order to build a solid foundation of consensus for the forthcoming North American fortress.
Ricardo Pascoe is a former Mexican ambassador to Cuba and has a doctorate in economics from the London School of Economics and Political Science. ricardopascoe@hotmail.com
Uncontrolled laughter, probably.
From us. You never know to what depths the libs will stoop.
Slowly but surely national sovereignty will be hollowed out using the process of 'ever closer union' (the Monnet method). At first you won't notice because the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government will continue to exist, but their powers slowly diluted in favor of a centralized thing. DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN NORTH AMERICA!
Well wait a minute. Imagine when a Dem president is in office and another 911 hits. They will be apt to take the integrated approach in their solution.
ping
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.