Wednesday, December 3, 2008
NAU deniers: Ignorant, or deceitful?
Posted on Saturday, August 25
There is a difference between stupid and ignorant. The talking heads at Fox News are not stupid. But the three guests on Brit Hume’s Tuesday night telecast who snickered at the “conspiracy nuts” who are concerned about the emergence of a North American Union are either ignorant, or deceitful. Here’s the question: Is the NAU fact, or fiction?
Ridicule is a time-proven way to discredit opponents and redirect attention away from the issue at hand. Consider how President Bush avoided answering a direct question during a press conference in Canada Tuesday. When asked, “Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union?” Bush didn’t say yes or no; he hemmed and hawed and told reporters: “I’m amused by the difference between what actually takes place in the meetings and by what some are trying to say takes place.”
Were the meetings not held in secret and were the press allowed to observe and report, the president would certainly not be amused. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch secured documents from a previous meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partners, and learned that in secret, the participants discussed “… evolution by stealth,” referring to the advancement of the SPP. But the president insisted that references to a North American Union were nothing but “political scare tactics.”
TOPICS: NAU, Nort American Union, stupid, ignorant, Fox News, conspiracy nuts, President Bush, press conference, Canada, Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch, Security and Prosperity Partners, SPP, prime minister of Canada, Mexico’s president, Council on Foreign Relations Task Force, Robert Pastor, Michael Medved, shameless collection of lunatics and losers, crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists, Bush administration, Security and Prosperity Partnership, The Future of North America, Stephen Harper, NAFTA Superhighway, North American SuperCorridor Coalition, U.S. trade deficit, trade policy, Mexican trucks, North American Advisory Council, North American Summits, deceitful
The president is not ignorant about what the SPP is doing; he and the other heads of state, the prime minister of Canada and Mexico’s president, are the current contractors charged with building the NAU. The chief architect is one Robert Pastor and the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force.
Michael Medved, a talk-show host who calls those concerned about the NAU a “shameless collection of lunatics and losers, crooks, cranks, demagogues and opportunists,” is also either ignorant, or deceitful. He also claims, “[Robert] Pastor is a loony leftist, slightly unhinged professor at American University … who bears no connection whatever to the Bush administration or the dreaded Security and Prosperity Partnership … an addled academic with zero power in the government.”
The FOIA documents secured by Judicial Watch from the secret SPP meeting revealed that in September 2005, Pastor conducted a seminar for the participating agencies of the three governments on “The Future of North America.” Obviously, Pastor was invited by the Bush administration. Obviously, Medved was either ignorant of this fact, or he is deliberately trying to deceive his audience.
Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, said: “There’s not going to be any NAFTA Superhighway connecting the three nations, and it’s not going to go interplanetary, either.”
But Canada’s deputy minister of transportation, Andrew Horoskok, is a regional vice president of the North American SuperCorridor Coalition, along with other prominent Canadians.
Is Harper ignorant, or deceitful?
In his defense of the secret SPP meetings, and in an effort to further distract attention from the NAU, President Bush told reporters that NAFTA generated $884 billion in trade. But he failed to report that last year alone, NAFTA also produced a U.S. trade deficit of $136.1 billion. Is Mr. Bush ignorant of this fact, or deceitful?
Bush, Harper, Medved and the three talking heads at Fox News can deny all they want, but it does not alter the facts on the ground. NAFTA is the legal framework upon which Robert Pastor’s North American Community is being constructed. The Security and Prosperity Partnership provides a mechanism for accelerating the progress.
Few people are aware that the NAFTA Commission consists of three appointed individuals – the trade representative, or equivalent, from each country – who are charged with implementing the NAFTA Agreement. The Commission appoints a secretariat to oversee the details. Article 511 requires that each nation adopt NAFTA’s “Uniform Regulations” by 1994, and that changes or additions to these Uniform Regulations be adopted by each nation, within 180 days.
In plain English, this means that appointed individuals are creating trade policy, and elected officials must conform laws to NAFTA’s “Uniform Regulations” within 180 days. Shouldn’t this be the other way around? To wit: Mexican trucks will deliver freight throughout the United States, despite the efforts of Congress to prevent it, because NAFTA’s international dispute resolution machinery has ordered the U.S. to allow Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways.
Every day, working groups consisting of appointed individuals from the agencies of these three governments meet to find ways to “harmonize” and “integrate” the policies, rules and laws of the three nations. This is a major objective of Pastor’s North American Community.
Another of Pastor’s goals is the creation of a North American Advisory Council. President Bush and the other two “contractors” created the North American Competitiveness Council in 2006.
Pastor also wants annual “North American Summits,” which have occurred each year since the creation of the SPP.
Pastor’s plan calls for a single security border around all three nations, which is a good explanation for why only 18 miles of the more than 800 miles of border fence have been built. The goal of the NAU – or the North American Community, if you prefer – is to effectively erase the borders between Mexico and Canada, not strengthen them.
Pastor also wants a North American Parliamentary group. Hmm … what could possibly be the purpose of a tri-lateral parliamentary body if it is not to create legislation for all three nations?
The deniers can deny all they wish. If they are not ignorant, they must be deceitful. If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, it’s probably a skunk – regardless of what you call it.
While you slept – NAU Phase One Complete
Sharing the Plunder of the South: The NAFTA corridors and Canada
Richard D. Vogel
Canadian Dimension Magazine, May/June 2007 issue
Our action will be guided by shared principles. We’ll take concrete steps in the coming 24 months to improve security at our borders and to ensure the smooth and efficient flow of goods and people, particularly with particular discussions with President Bush on the Windsor-Detroit Corridor.
–P.M. Stephen Harper, following the North American trilateral summit (Cancun, Mexico, March 2006)
Canadians should regard Prime Minister Harper’s specific reference to a NAFTA corridor and general reference to shared principles as a warning, because the developing continental transportation infrastructure and the plan behind it are shaping the future of North America, including Canada, at the expense of all working people on this continent.
The Cancun summit where Harper delivered his comments was a follow-up meeting of the trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which was formally announced in Texas in 2005. Canada hosted the next meeting in late February of this year. To understand what is really going on, however, we must see through the carefully staged press conferences and focus on the concrete developments across the continent.
Dubbed “NAFTA Plus” by pundits in the popular press, the SPP is the continuing expansion of free-trade policies that were consolidated under NAFTA ten years earlier. The winners and losers of this ongoing trilateral power alliance remain the same big capital in the North continues to expand its power at the expense of workers, their communities, and the environment in both the North and the South.
The U.S. is geographically, economically and politically the centre of this alliance, but the ruling classes of Canada and Mexico are willing partners in the plunder of the South. The current political strategy of big capital is to maintain power by extracting more profits than ever through the manipulation of various trade arrangements. To accomplish this goal, capitalists operate internationally, cementing cooperation between the ruling classes while pitting the working people of the three nations against
one another through various offshoring and importing schemes.
The NAFTA corridor system is the backbone of the North American alliance of capitalism. A close look at the infrastructure of the NAFTA corridors exposes the long-range strategy of the trilateral partnership.
The North American SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO) is a public fa ade of the trilateral trade alliance. On its website is a map of the NAFTA corridors with arrows radiating out from the heartland of the U.S. through Canada and Mexico, implying net export activities and prosperity for all three countries. The reality of NAFTA economics, however, is the predominance of imports of both goods and people from the South for consumption and service in the North.
The map pictured to the left is a more realistic representation of the NAFTA corridors. It features the two NAFTA supercorridors presently under construction in the U.S. The I-35 corridor parallels existing U.S. Interstate 35 from Laredo on the Texas border to the U.S.-Canada border at Duluth, with a major branch from Kansas City due north to the border at Pembina-Emerson, via I-29. This international route links Mexico City to Winnipeg and beyond.
The clear purpose of the I-69 corridor, the other supercorridor already under construction in south Texas, is to link the interior of Mexico to southeastern Canada through Port Huron, just north of the Detroit-Windsor crossing. The heavy traffic on the existing I-69, and the plans to route the new supercorridor through Port Huron, accounts for Harper’s emphasis on this critical Point of Entry into Canada.
In addition to the supercorridors, the above map also tracks the proposed Canamex corridor, which will link Mexico City to Edmonton, Alberta. Although Canamex is not slated to become a supercorridor, its primary function is essentially the same: to move goods and people from the South to the North. Highway construction along this route is presently focused on linking existing highways and easing traffic congestion in the urban areas located in the path of the corridor.
The South-North orientation of the NAFTA corridors offers a distinct contrast to the historic East-West transportation infrastructure developed during the 20th Century, and reflects the overall strategy of the North American alliance of capital to tap the South for raw materials, offshore finished goods and labour.
The size and configuration of the corridors also highlight their function. In the state of Texas, where traffic from Mexico will be heaviest, the NAFTA corridors are being constructed in a 1,200-foot right-of-way that will ultimately include six passenger vehicle lanes, four truck lanes and six rail lines, with utility, maintenance and safety zones. As the corridors progress north, they will carry increasingly less traffic and will be constructed accordingly.
The designation of specific locations along the I-35 NAFTA supercorridor as inland ports also reveals the ultimate function of the transportation system. From South to North, the official Inland Ports Network publicized and promoted by NASCO includes: Bajio/Central in Mexico; San Antonio, Alliance, Texas, and Kansas City in the U.S.; and Winnipeg in Canada. The inland ports on the I-69 supercorridor have not yet been named. The significance of these inland ports will be discussed in conjunction with the following analysis of the traffic on the corridors. Though both the South-North orientation and the size and configuration of the NAFTA supercorridors establish the ultimate function of the massive transportation infrastructure, the full implications of this project for the working men and women of North America cannot be appreciated until the traffic to be accommodated by the corridor system is examined.
The NAFTA corridor network is without a doubt the biggest surface transportation project in the history of North America.
The economic and political significance of the project is not only in its size, however, but also in its ultimate purpose. The intended function of this extensive infrastructure can only be understood by looking at the traffic of both goods and people that the corridors are designed to carry.
The Goods. The freight that is already transported on existing NAFTA highways includes agricultural products and capital goods from Canada and the U.S. to Mexico and raw materials and value-added goods manufactured in Mexico or the far-eastern Pacific Rim and land-bridged across Mexico for consumption in the North. (For an in-depth analysis of using Mexico as a land bridge to avoid unionized labour of northern ports and roads, see my article “The NAFTA Corridors: Offshoring U.S. Transportation Jobs to Mexico,” Monthly Review, February, 2006.)
The NAFTA supercorridors are designed to accommodate the ever-increasing deluge of cheap goods needed to keep North American capitalism afloat. The Inland Ports Network will streamline this flow of goods by pre-inspecting international shipments to avoid congestion at international borders. Under the SPP, shipments of offshore finished goods received through Mexican ports or manufactured in Mexico will be consolidated, staged and inspected at Bajio/Central and transported via the NAFTA supercorridors all the way to inland ports in the North and consumer outlets in the U.S. and Canada. Likewise, northern inland ports will expedite freight and the return of empty containers to the South.
The Inland Ports Network will also have a central role in managing the flow of human traffic from the South.
The passenger-vehicle lanes and commuter rail lines in the NAFTA supercorridors will accommodate all manner of intra- and inter-state travelers, but, under the authority of the SPP, a large proportion of the human traffic will be the millions of transient servants recruited in Mexico and Central America to work in the North under the guest-worker programs that are pending in the U.S. and Canada. (For an analysis of the U.S. guest-worker program introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2006
and currently under consideration, see my article “Transient Servitude: The U.S. Guest Worker Program for Exploiting Mexican and Central American Workers,” Monthly Review, January, 2007.)
To understand the impact of the guest-worker programs being promoted by the trilateral alliance, it must be kept in mind that they are not like the agricultural guest-worker programs of the past. Under the new programs, workers from the South will be admitted with non-sector-specific visas, and will be available to all industries in the North. The demand for this cheap labour will create unprecedented human traffic on the NAFTA corridors.
The resulting flood of guest workers from the South, which is projected to be between a half-million and a million persons in the first year alone, will exceed the present unauthorized migration to the North that has already been acknowledged as the biggest migration of workers in history. Though the dominant flow of workers, like goods, will be from the South to the North, strict time limits on workers’ visas (three years, under most of the proposals) will ensure heavy two-way traffic on the NAFTA corridors, especially after the initial period.
The Inland Ports Network will also expedite this human traffic. Because these customs facilities are also official Points of Entry, they can issue visas and be used as recruitment and dispatch centres for labour contractors under international guest-worker programs. In effect, the Inland Ports Network will relocate and concentrate cheap labour from the South close to employers in the North.
This is, in essence, the grand plan behind Harper’s promise that the SPP will “ensure the smooth and efficient flow of goods and people” into Canada. What all of the representatives of the trilateral alliance of capital avoid in their public pronouncements is any mention of the impact of their plans on the working people, their communities and the environment of North America.
The impact of the SPP, as an extension of the free-trade policies established by NAFTA and manifested in the developing NAFTA transportation infrastructure, is reflected in the tag of NAFTA Plus: It will add to and intensify the problems created by NAFTA in both North and South.
The primary impact of the SPP scheme on working people in the North will be job-related. The trend of offshoring work from the North to the South and beyond to the far-eastern Pacific Rim will increase and continue to undercut the value of native labour as it has under NAFTA; the mass influx of Mexican and Central American workers under the terms of transient servitude that will accompany any North American guest-worker programs under NAFTA Plus will reduce the value of labour in the North to unprecedented lows.
Promises of new jobs in the North under the SPP scheme are as misleading as those offered by the promoters of NAFTA.
Under the new trilateral agreement, there will be many new transportation jobs, but the workers on the NAFTA corridors the longshoremen, truck drivers and warehouse and support workers will be recruited from the South and will be paid minimal wages.
The disintegration of workers’ communities in the North that started under NAFTA will continue apace. The contraction of social services due to reduced incomes and diminished tax revenues will result in declining housing and health-care standards and practices for all working people, and will undercut public education even further.
The political controversy over controlling displaced native workers and poor migrant populations currently growing in the U.S. foreshadows a much deeper and wider crisis that will accompany mass transient servitude in North America under the SPP.
And last but not least environmental damage, the not-so-hidden cost of NAFTA, will be compounded under the SPP. The increased flow of passenger, truck and rail traffic on the NAFTA corridors, along with the massive new construction of the supercorridor infrastructure, will significantly accelerate ongoing environmental degradation.
Working people know that the “shared principles” cited by Harper at Cancun are not shared by everyone. We have experienced more than a decade of life under NAFTA, and we know that competition between the working people in North America is a strategy of free trade that profits only big capital. Under NAFTA Plus, we face more of the same. The task of our times is to turn back the juggernaut of blind profit mongering that is consuming North America and spoiling much of the rest of the world.
The Political Imperative
The current political imperative for working people is clear: to check the momentum of free trade by all available means and to repair the damage it has wreaked on our lives, our communities and our futures. We must put people and the environment before profits. We must insist that all future development is sustainable and contributes to the common good.
Above all, we must renounce any competition between workers, either domestic or international, and specifically we must stop the implementation of mass transient servitude under the guise of guest-worker programs that will seriously degrade all working people in North America.
Big capital has ruled North America unchallenged for the last 25 years with devastating results. One of the ways that they have maintained control is by imposing austerity measures that they call “structural adjustments” on the working classes of Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.
It is time that we, the working people of North America, join together and impose structural adjustments on capital that will shift the balance of power back towards labour and ensure the sustainability of economic development.
There’s too much at stake to avoid the fight.
This article was posted on Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm and is filed under Globalization/Imperialism Canadian
Dimension Magazine Canada-USA Mexico.
The North American Union “NAU
click here for the video: www.virb.com
Connie Fogal Constance (Connie) Fogal (born 1940) is the leader of the Canadian Action Party. A lawyer and former teacher, Fogal lives in Vancouver, British Columbia where her late husband Harry Rankin was a long time progressive city councillor. She is an anti-globalization activist and was an opponent of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and the North American Free Trade Agreement. She has also been active with the “Canadian Liberty Committee”. In the 1997 election, running in Vancouver Centre, she received 528 votes, coming in seventh behind Liberal Hedy Fry. In the 2000 election, she ran in Vancouver Kingsway and received 1,200 votes, coming in fifth behind Liberal Sophia Leung. In the 2004 election, Fogal was a candidate in Vancouver Quadra, where she received 165 votes. Independent Task Force on North America The Independent Task Force on North America was a project organized by the United States Council on Foreign Relations, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It was chaired by former Canadian politician John Manley and advocates a greater economic and social integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It was launched in October 2004 and published two documents: Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March 2005) and its final report Building a North American Community (May 2005). The final report proposed increased international cooperation between the nations of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, similar in some respects to that of the European Union. Some Internet sources claim that this report, despite its own language rejecting a political union, would create a North American Union, which would link the three North American countries into a political union in the model of the European Union. Some envision this new North American Union as having its own currency known as the amero, which would replace the Mexican peso, U.S. dollar and Canadian dollar. History In recent times, the three North American nation-states have been increasing their economic ties, accelerating the process with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In response to the demands of increasing globalization and shared concerns from abroad, such as the increasing clout of other economic spheres such as the European Union and China, the leaders of the three nations agreed in 2005 to work more cooperatively on shared North American concerns. To this end, they agreed to establish the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Common Currency Robert Pastor, a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report Building a North American Union, has suggested that a common currency might be called the “amero”, which would be similar in concept to the euro, the common currency of the EU. Another possible name could be the North American Dollar (NAD). The third major country, Mexico, uses the peso, which, although it is currently trading at an exchange rate significantly lower relative to the dollar currencies of both Canada and the USA, was originally was exactly equal to one silver dollar. Both the dollar and the peso were based on the Spanish dollar. Geography The North American Union would currently (as of 2007) have a total population of around 440,000,000 citizens. For comparison, the European Union currently (as of 2007) has an estimated population of 493,000,000. The NAU population would be divided among the three constituent nations as follows: North American Population By Country Country Population USA 300,050,259 Mexico 107,449,525 Canada 33,098,932 Status To date, the three governments have taken no official action on the proposal, either to endorse or reject it. Some opponents have alleged that international discussions around economic and security matters fit within the context of the proposal and are designed to pave the way for a formal set of negotiations on the union. On October 30, 2006, while speaking at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI) 2006 Annual Conference in Ottawa, former American Ambassador to Canada (2001-2005) & former Republican Governor of Massachusetts Paul Cellucci indicated that, after further economic integration, a union would exist in everything but name: “Now I don’t believe that we will ever have a, in name anyways, a common union like the Europeans have, I don’t believe we’ll have a common currency here in North America, but I believe that, incrementally, we will continue to integrate our economies because I believe it is in each of our national interests to do so. And along the way, I think we’ll do a couple of things and I think that, well more than a couple of things, but.. I think we’ll.. 10 years from now, or maybe 15 years from now we’re gonna look back and we’re gonna have a union in everything but name…”  Previous attempts In the late nineteenth century, John Redpath and Louis-Joseph Papineau led a movement to merge Canada with the United States. However, the movement failed because it was massively opposed by the local constituents and by the British Empire. It had been encouraged by the left-leaning Red Party of Rodolphe Laflamme, a leading intellectual of his day. NAU precursors and alternatives * North American Forum on Integration * NAFTA – North American Free Trade Agreement * North American SuperCorridor Coalition * Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America * North American Competitiveness Council * North American Forum Other regional blocs * Continental union o African Union o Asian Union o European Union o Pacific Union o Union of South American Nations * Caribbean Community * Arab League More information * International Mid-Continent Trade Corridor * Trans-Texas Corridor * North American SuperCorridor Coalition North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA Jerome R. Corsi | May 30, 2006 In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health. SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew. Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda: In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people. This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight. Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed. And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses: The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure. Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies. What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step. Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital. Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.” The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.” The Task Force’s central recommendation 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. (page xvii) The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within: Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will 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. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3) What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions: While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence. The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24) Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.
SuperCorridor Defeat? Don’t Bet On It
In contrast, opposition groups are numerous, vocal, but yet to achieve enough critical mass to matter. They include groups like the “People’s Summit” that protested in New Orleans last April against the recent three-presidential secret summit to plot strategy. Also, the conservative Coalition to Block the North American Union condemns a “stealth plan” to erase national borders, merge three nations into one, end the sovereignty of each, build a SuperCorridor, put Washington and the military in charge, allow unlimited immigration, and replace the dollar with the “amero.” – Stephen Lendman
Friday, June 20, 2008
by Stephen Lendman
World Prout Assembly
06/20/08 – “World Prout Assembly” – The title refers to the I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) portion of the North American SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO) project. The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) announced that, for now at least, it nixed this part of the $184 billion scheme calling for:
— a 4000 mile toll road network of transportation corridors;
— 10 lanes or 1200 feet wide;
— two or more trans-Texas corridors being considered; one paralleling I-35 from Laredo through San Antonio, Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth to Gainesville; the other an extension following US 59 from Texarkana through Houston to Laredo or the Rio Grande Valley;
— others would parallel I-45 from Dallas/FortWorth to Houston and I-10 from El Paso to Orange;
— they’ll accommodate car and truck traffic;
— rail lines;
— pipelines and utilities; and
— communication systems.
It’s planned across Texas from Mexico to Oklahoma, would have annexed huge private land tracts, and may later on take much of it anyway. Enough to threaten organizations like the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA), Texas Farm Bureau and other rural interests. Their member property rights are at stake, so they fought it, and for now, prevailed – at least partly, but the matter is far from settled.
On June 10, Executive Director Amadeo Saenz announced that TxDOT “narrowed the (TTC I-69) study area (to) existing highway (routes) whenever possible,” and “any area (outside) an existing (one) will not be considered” except for necessary portions. NASCO’s Texas highway remains viable. It’s just a little less “Super” and for now will use mostly existing state highways and connect them to northern links.
The larger project is far more ambitious. It’s to develop an international, integrated, secure superhighway running the length and breath of the continent for profit. It’s to militarize and annex it as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) scheme – aka “Deep Integration” North American Union. If completed, it will extend nearly everywhere – North, South, East and West along four main cross-border regions:
— an Atlantic Corridor, including: the Canada-US East Coast; the Champlain-Hudson Corridor; the Appalachian region; and the Gulf of Mexico;
— a Central Eastern Corridor; an urban one through large cities and industrial areas; another through the Great Plains to the Canadian Prairies;
— a Central Western Corridor, including the largest Mexican maquiladora concentration; and
— a Pacific Corridor linking Fairbanks, Alaska to San Diego into Tijuana, Ciudad Obrego and Mazatlan, Mexico.
From north to south, it will extend from Fairbanks to Winnipeg, Manitoba; Edmonton, Alberta; and Windsor, Ontario, Canada through Kansas City, San Antonio and Laredo, Texas into Neuvo Laredo, Monterrey, Guadalajara, and the ports of Manzanillo, Colima and Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico. Other links will connect Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto, Canada to New York, Chicago, Indianapolis, Denver, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City, Memphis, Dallas, Houston with still more routes to follow – East to West, North to South across Canada, the US and Mexico.
Canada’s plan is called CISCOR – the Canadian Intelligent SuperCorridor running west from Vancouver and Prince Rupert to Montreal and Halifax. Its web site explains it as follows: “The Saskatchen-based CISCOR Smart Inland Port Network will serve as the central logistics and coordination hub, creating a Canadian east-west land bridge (connecting) three major North American north-south corridors; North Americas SuperCorridor (NASCO), Canada America Mexico Corridor (CANAMEX) and River of Trade Corridor Coalition (ROTCC).
ROTCC was created in 2004 to facilitate trade across 3300 miles from Laredo, Texas to Detroit and into Canada. Another route along I-45 extends from Houston and the I-10 corridor and rail route from Los Angeles and Long Beach to Dallas/Fort Worth.
Overall, it will be a comprehensive energy and commerce-related transportation artery for trade and strategic resources with DHS and NORTHCOM in charge. They’ll monitor and militarize it through a network of high-tech sensors and trackers to secure the continent for profit at the expense of the greater public good the way these schemes always work.
Part of the plan involves a proposed arrangement between NASCO and a company called Savi Networks – a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Hutchison Ports Holdings, a Chinese ports management firm. If instituted, it will generate huge revenues by paying NASCO 25 cents for each of the millions of “revenue-generating intermodal ocean cargo container(s)” using the supercorridor as well as along other north-south routes being planned. The idea is to install an RFID chip network and put them in containers as well for tracking. They’ll monitor them from port of entry to final destination and make shippers pay tolls in addition to transportation costs. They’ll, in turn, pass on costs to buyers.
Lockheed Martin runs a Global Transport Network (GTN) Command and Control Center for the military that provides electronic tracking. On its web site, Savi Networks says it “was formed to improve the efficiency and security of global trade (through its) SaviTrack system.” It “utilizes a reliable network of wireless Automated Identification and Data Collection (AIDC) equipment and (Enterprise Resource Planning – ERP) software to provide shippers, logistics service providers, and terminal operators with precise and actionable information.”
For now, the Texas artery will be less ambitious but still part of the grander scheme. For its part, I-69/TTC remains a government-private partnership whereby new roads will charge tolls for maximum revenue generation and make the public to pay the tab for their use.
Besides the scaled back I-69/TTC, another planned project is just as worrisome. It’s called the TTC-35 600 mile corridor extension along I-35 from Oklahoma through Dallas/Forth Worth to Laredo to Mexico and possibly the Gulf Coast. A two-tiered environmental study for it began in spring 2004 and remains ongoing.
Tier One engendered sweeping opposition but not enough to stop it. Public hearings were held for input on potential corridor locations and promoted what’s called the Preferred Corridor Alternative. Federal Highway Administration approval comes next, after which a Tier Two phase would identify proposed highway alignments and other modes and potential access points. Hearings would follow for further public input and be as likely to generate hostility as did the I-69/TTC project. It slowed SuperCorridor momentum, but in Texas and across the country it’s very much alive and ongoing.
Powerful forces back it in spite of considerable opposition in states across the country. In support are organizations like:
— the Council on Foreign Relation and its influential members; it backed business having “unlimited (cross-border) access in its 2005 report titled “Building a North American Community; its Task Force “applauds the announced ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)’ of North America” – aka North American Union and its SuperCorridor project; it also sees a step beyond with “a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 (giving) specific recommendations on how to achieve it.”
— the International Mobility & Trade Corridor Project (IMTC); it bills itself as a US – Canadian government and business coalition “promot(ing) improvements to mobility and security for the four border crossings between Whatcom County, Washington and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia” – combined called the Cascade Gateway;
— the CANAMEX Corridor Coalition for a superhighway linking Mexico City to Edmonton, Alberta; it supports the “seamless and efficient transportation of goods, services, people and information between Canada, Mexico and the US;”
— the Central North American Trade Corridor Association (CHATCA); it’s for a Central North American Trade Corridor fully integrated in the global economy and refers to “5 T’s” as “essential:” tourism, technology, trade, transportation and training;
— the Ports to Plains Trade (PTP) Corridor; it supports a multimodal one from Mexico through the four PTP states of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and Oklahoma up to Canada and the Pacific Northwest;
— the Champlain-Hudson Trade Corridor and Gateway Coalition representing trade from Quebec City and Montreal to New York; and
— the I-95 Corridor Coalition alliance of transportation agencies, toll authorities, and related organizations (including law enforcement) from Canada to Florida in support of transportation managements and operational common interest issues favoring business.
Nothing so far is finalized, but SuperCorrider momentum remains viable. It’s slowed in Texas, but very much alive and viable.
In contrast, opposition groups are numerous, vocal, but yet to achieve enough critical mass to matter. They include groups like the “People’s Summit” that protested in New Orleans last April against the recent three-presidential secret summit to plot strategy. Also, the conservative Coalition to Block the North American Union condemns a “stealth plan” to erase national borders, merge three nations into one, end the sovereignty of each, build a SuperCorridor, put Washington and the military in charge, allow unlimited immigration, and replace the dollar with the “amero.”
Still another is a group of citizen-activist Oklahomans and the organization they formed: Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise. Like similar Texas and other state groups, it’s against the SuperCorridor and its proposed I-35 route through their state. It’s a conservative group believing that “a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a freely competitive market…with a minimum of governmental intervention and regulation.” It opposes government using the law to facilitate a “corporate takeover” of society and fund it with public tax dollars. On board as well is an Oklahoma state senator who says “the NAFTA Superhighway stops here.”
He’ll need other lawmakers with him and on April 29 failed. Despite vocal opposition, the Oklahoma state legislature authorized the creation of “Smart (inland) Ports” and SuperCorridor system despite earlier having passed a resolution urging Congress “to withdraw from the (SPP – North American Union)” and all activities related to it. Besides Oklahoma, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) lists 21 other states that have passed public-private partnership enabling legislation considered essential for private investment to go forward.
At the federal level, there’s also congressional opposition (but not enough to matter) in spite of Rep. Virgil Goode and six co-sponsors introducing House Concurrent Resolution 40 in January 2007. It expressed “the sense of (some but not enough in) Congress that the United States should not engage in (building a NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.”
State legislatures as well are against it (in contrast to others in support) – thus far a dozen or more passing resolutions in 2008 and another 20 in 2007. Well and good but remember Adlai Stevenson’s response to an enthusiastic supporter during his first presidential campaign. He thanked the woman and replied: “That’s not enough madam. I need a majority.”
It’s no different for the SuperCorridor and North American Union. They’re progressing secretly in spite of activist opposition and a largely unaware public. A recent poll sheds light. It was conducted by the American Policy Center that calls itself “a privately funded, nonprofit, 501 c (4), tax-exempt grassroots action and education foundation dedicated to the promotion of free enterprise and limited government….”
It revealed no widespread public SPP opposition because most people (58% living along the proposed Texas to Minnesota route) don’t know about it or enough to matter. However, 95% of respondents with awareness opposed it but unfortunately in answer to biased questions. Their wording apparently conveyed the idea of “private corporations (having) power to enforce trade policy that may adversely affect our national sovereignty and independence.”
Market researchers know that questions must be neutral and unbiased to produce reliable results. For example, respondents should have been asked: From what you know about SPP, do you favor or oppose it? A follow-up should then ask “why” to get unguided replies. Other biased questions were also asked and elicited strong opposition to an “amero,” NAFTA courts superseding state and federal ones, the Bush administration being allowed to proceed without congressional approval, the US being “harmonized” or merged with Mexico and Canada, and more.
Most important is that public knowledge is sparse. What is known is incomplete, at times inaccurate, and either way plans (so far) are proceeding with or without congressional or public approval.
It means a corporate coup d’etat is advancing, aided and abetted by three governments. They plan to unite and become one, militarize the continent for enforcement, lay ribbons of concrete and rail lines across it, and hand it over to business for profit. That’s where things now stand. Imagine where they’ll end if a way isn’t found to stop them.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit our NAU website for the latest information: http://www.NAUWarRoom.org
News: Barack Obama mocked the facts about the NAU during the campaign, showing he may continue accelerating the merger. His apparent contempt for American patriotism gives further cause for alarm. Write and call your Senators and Congressmen, urging them to co-sponsor HCR 40 (in the Senate, ask your Senators to sponsor the bill). Email this video to your friends!
This Conservative Roundtable interview of Jerome Corsi by Howard Phillips reveals how behind closed doors, the Bush administration has collaborated with the governments of Mexico and Canada to merge the three nations into one Socialist mega-state: the “North American Union” (NAU), also known as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP). Mr. Corsi is an investigative journalist for http://www.WND.com where you can find many of his articles exposing the NAU; and he is a best selling author of many books including the new “Obama Nation” book.
Freedom and our Constitution will have no place in this grim Orwellian future. The Dollar will be scrapped for the “Amero” formed by including Mexican and Canadian currencies and Socialist economic policies.
There will be no First and Second Amendments and no limit on the power of government. This is following the same path as merging Europe into the EU, abandoning sovereignty for Socialist conformity, and assigning convenience a higher priority than freedom. Last year, the three leaders met in Montebello, Quebec, Canada for their secret summit. This year the leaders met in New Orleans in April, each time advancing the cause of surrendering the nation our founding fathers built to secure our freedom.
Behind the scenes, the shadow government bureaucrats and corporate profiteers meet in “working groups” including the National Competitiveness Council (NACC), SPP, and other entities to incrementally “integrate” the US with Mexico and Canada in the direction of the European Union.
One of the prime architects of the NAU, Robert Pastor, has discussed how another 9/11 crisis could be used to force through the merger–in other words, you and even Congress won’t even have a voice in the Bush-led surrender of our country–unless we all act NOW to have Congress outlaw any Presidential actions which would lead to such a merger of our nations in any way.
Canadian citizens would lose their independence to their southern neighbors under the NAU – in Canada the scheme is known as Deep Integration. America’s former borders would be wide open to drug smuggling and terrorists. Mexico could suffer a catastrophic brain-and-labor-drain as all Mexican citizens by right could move to the U.S. or Canada. Leaders in both major U.S. parties as well as the ruling parties in Mexico and Canada are determined to wipe out your freedom, unless you act now. This is why Bush refuses to secure the border–he wants to abolish it!
The NAFTA Superhighway/Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) is being built as part of the NAU to serve the Chinese so they can unload ships using cheaper Mexican dockworkers and use Mexican trucks and trains instead of American port workers and trucks/trains.
Howard Phillips is the Chairman of The Conservative Caucus, America’s Constitutional Government action organization. Your assistance is invited.
Visit our new NAU website: http://www.NAUWarRoom.org
We wish to reach our friends in Canada and Mexico to warn them of the dangers of the SPP/NAU to their independence and future:
Arrêter l’Union de l’Amérique du Nord.
Partenariat Nord-Américain pour la Sécurité et la Prospérité (PSP).
Poner fin a la unión de América del Norte.
Alianza para la Seguridad y la Prosperidad en América del Norte (ASPAN).
He’s just never heard of it…
Ron Paul speaks up