Michel Chossudovsky, Bev Collins, Connie Fogal- Challenging the ...
Bay Area Indymedia, CA - 20 hours ago
by Carol Brouillet On the weekly radio show- Questioning War- Organizing Resistance, Canadian guests will report on resistance to the North American Union. ...
Rally to Keep America Free / No American Union This Sat 11-1PM Bay Area Indymedia
American Leaders travel to Ottawa on August 20 to question secrecy ... Canadian National Newspaper
Defeating The North American Union Monster OpEdNews
Canada.com - Vancouver Sun
Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
13 comments:
Security and Prosperity Partnership: Meet the Powerful Business Members of the North American Competitiveness Council
The North American Competitiveness Council, part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, was established by the American, Canadian and Mexican governments at the June 2006 trilateral meeting in Cancun, Mexico. Comprised of 30 senior private sector representatives, 10 from each country (though there are 13 U.S. members), the council is mandated to provide governments with recommendations on issues including border regulation and competitiveness in the automotive, transportation, manufacturing and services sectors. The council is expected to meet annually with security and prosperity ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis. They last met in February 2007 in Ottawa and are expected to meet again in Canada in August. The following is a brief list of the council members.
CANADIAN MEMBERS
Dominic D'Alessandro, Manulife Financial
Italian-born chartered accountant has been Manulife Financial's president since 1994. Mr. D'Alessandro is a vice chairman of the board of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and a director of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. He also co-chairs the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council.
Paul Desmarais, Jr., Power Corporation of Canada
In 1984, appointed vice-chairman of Power Financial Corporation, a company he helped set up, becoming chairman of the board in 1990 and chairman of the executive committee in May 2005. He was appointed chairman of the board and co-CEO of Power Corporation of Canada in 1996.
David Ganong, Ganong Bros. Ltd.
Director of Ganong Bros. since 1977, director of Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers, and chairman on the University of New Brunswick's board of governors. He is also director of Sun Life Financial, director of the Conference Board of Canada, chairman of the New Brunswick Business Council.
Richard George, Suncor Energy Inc.
Originally from Colorado, Mr. George spent 10 years with Sun Company in the U.S. and the UK. Appointed Suncor's president and CEO in 1991. Took Canadian citizenship in 1996. Honourary chair of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and a member of the board of directors of the U.S. offshore and onshore drilling company, GlobalSantaFe Corporation.
E. Hunter Harrison, CN
President and CEO of CN since 2003. Former president and CEO of the Illinois Central Corporation and the Illinois Central Railroad Company. Member of Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Authored the book, How We Work and Why in 2005. Born in Tennessee.
Linda Hasenfratz, Linamar Corporation (NACC chairperson)
Ms. Hasenfratz joined Linamar Corporation in 1990 and held many positions, including director, president and chief operating officer. Named CEO in August 2002. Holds an Executive MBA from the Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario. Also sits on the board of directors for CIBC and the Royal Ontario Museum.
Michael Sabia, Bell Canada Enterprises
President and CEO of BCE, and CEO of Bell Canada, Mr. Sabia has held these same positions and others in both companies as well as Bell Canada International Inc. since 1999. He's also board chairman of Bell Aliant Regional Communications, as well as director of the Thomson Corporation. Previously worked with the CN Railway, the federal Department of Finance and the Privy Council Office.
Jim Shepherd, Canfor Corporation
Appointed Canfor Corporation's president and CEO in April 2004, Mr. Shepherd quit his post on March 30. Mr. Shepherd has worked in Ontario and B.C.'s forestry industries for over 25 years, including as Slocan Forest Products's president in 1999. He sits on a number of boards including the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Asia Pacific Trade Council.
Annette Verschuren, The Home Depot
Former president and co-owner of arts and crafts chain Michael's of Canada, Ms. Verschuren joined Home Depot in 1996, and is president of Canadian operations. She sits on the boards of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and Habitat for Humanity, and is chancellor to University College of Cape Breton.
Rick Waugh, Scotiabank
Appointed president and CEO in 2003, Mr. Waugh has been with Scotiabank since 1970, serving in investment, corporate, international and retail banking areas. He also serves on the board of the Institute for International Finance, is a member of the Chairman's Advisory Council for the Council of the Americas, and the IMF's Capital Markets Consultative Group.
MEXICAN MEMBERS
José Luís Barraza Gonzalez, Consejo Coordinador Empresarial
Over 22 years' experience in international commerce, promotion and industrial development. President of the Consejo Coordinador Empresarial (Enterprise Coordinating Council) since 2004, and of the Council of Administration of Companies. Mr. Barraza is also CEO of Grupo Impulso, Realiza & Asociados, Inmobiliaria Realiza and Optima. He previously served as vice-president for the promotion of economic development in the state of Chihuahua.
Gastón Azcárraga Andrade, Consejo Mexicano de Hombres de Negocios
President of Consejo Mexicano de Hombres de Negocios, a group of Mexico's leading industrialists, and CEO of Mexicana de Aviación and Grupo Posadas. In 1989 became CEO of Grupo Posadas, a leading hotel operator in Latin America founded by his father. He is also a member of the board of directors of ING Mexico and Holcim-Apasco and is an advisor to the National Tourism Council.
César de Anda Molina, president and CEO of Avicar de Occidente
Mr. Anda Molina has been involved with Mexico's poultry and farming industry in a variety of capacities, including as president of the National Union of Poultry Producers and vice-president of International Relations of the Farming National Council.
Valentín Díez Morodo, Consejo Mexicano de Comercio Exterior
As well as being president of the Consejo Mexicano de Comercio Exterior (Mexican Business Council for Foreign Trade, Investment and Technology), Mr. Diez is a member of the Mexican Business Council, president of the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness and board president of Iberoamericana University. He sits on a number of boards of directors including Grupo Financiero Banamex, Mexichem and Kimberly Clark de México.
Jaime Yesaki Cavazos, Consejo Nacional Agropecuario
Mr. Yesaki is director of the Consejo Nacional Agropecuario (National Agriculture and Livestock Council), the principal agri-business federation in Mexico. He is also the CEO of several poultry companies.
Claudio X. González, Centro de Estudios Económicos del Sector Privado
In addition to being president of the Centro de Estudios Económicos del Sector Privado (Center of Economic Studies of the Private Sector), Mr. Gonzalez is also a director of Kellogg Company, The Mexico Fund, Inc., Banco Nacional de Mexico, Grupo Televisa and Telefonos de Mexico, among others. He is has also been board chairman and CEO of Kimberly-Clark de Mexico since 1973.
Guillermo Vogel, vice-president of TAMSA (Tubos de Acero de México)
Mr. Vogel joined TAMSA in 1983 and has been vice chairman since 1997. He is also vice chairman of the American Iron and Steel Institute, vice-chairman of the board of Tenaris and chairman of the North American Steel Council. He is also a board director of Amazonia, Instituto Latinoamericano del Fierro y el Acero, Citibank-Banamex and HSBC Bank Mexico.
León Halkin, Confederación de Cámaras Industriales (CONCAMIN)
Mr. Halkin was president of the Confederación de Cámaras Industriales (Mexican Federation of Industrial Chambers) until October 2006. He is also chairman of the board and CEO of four companies in the industrial and real estate markets.
Tomás González Sada, president and CEO of Grupo CYDSA
Took over as chairman, president and CEO of Grupo Cydsa, a textiles manufacturing firm, in 1994. Involved in a sister enterprise, Vitro Corporativo S.A. de C.V. Mr. Gonzalez Sada is also chairman of the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness.
Alfredo Moisés Ceja, president of Finca Montegrande
Asides from being president of the winery Finca Montegrande, Mr. Moises Ceja is president of the council of the Mexican Association of Coffee Exporters and is vice president of international commerce on Mexico's National Agricultural Council.
U.S. MEMBERS
Lou Schorsch, Mittal Steel USA
Named Mittal Steel USA's CEO in 2006 after serving for a year as CEO in 2005. Dr. Schorsch previously serves as CEO of Ispat Inland and has over 26 years of experience in consulting and management in the steel industry, as well as the e-commerce sector. He is the co-author of the book Steel: Upheaval in a Basic Industry.
Joseph Gilmour, New York Life
Promoted to chief executive of New York Life International in 2006. Served as executive vice president and chief financial officer there since 2003. Worked for 25 years with Canada Life, including role as senior vice president of the international and reinsurance Division. Mr. Gilmour is a fellow of the Society of Actuaries.
Rick Wagoner, General Motors
Elected GM's chairman and chief executive officer in 2003. He had been president and CEO since 2000. Began career with GM in 1977 and has worked for the firm in Canada, Brazil and Switzerland. Mr. Wagoner is a member of the boards of trustees of Duke University, the Board of Dean's Advisors of the Harvard Business School, and the Board of Directors of Catalyst. He is chairman of the Society of Automotive Engineers.
William Clay Ford Jr., Ford
Director since 1988, chairman of the board of directors since 2001 and executive chairman since 2006 of the Ford Motor Company. Mr. Ford has held a number of management positions within Ford. He also is vice chairman of the Detroit Lions, Inc. and chairman of the Detroit Economic Club.
Raymond Gilmartin, Merck
Mr. Gilmartin left his role as chairman, president and CEO of pharmaceutical firm Merck in 2005, joining the Harvard Business School's MBA program in 2006, his alma mater. He joined Merck in 1994. He sits on the boards of Microsoft and General Mills Inc. Mr. Gilmartin has been involved in global economic and trade issues that concern the pharmaceutical industry.
David J. O'Reilly, Chevron
Born in Ireland, Mr. O'Reilly joined Chevron in 1968 and was elected chairman and CEO in 2000. Mr. O'Reilly is a committee director at the American Petroleum Institute and a director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He is also a member of the World Economic Forum's International Business Council, the JPMorgan International Council, the American Society of Corporate Executives and the Trilateral Commission.
Jeffrey R. Immelt, General Electric
Mr. Immelt has been the General Electric Company's CEO since 2001, the latest senior position he's held since joining the corporation in 1982. He has been president since 2000. Mr. Immelt also serves as a director of Catalyst, Robin Hood and The Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
H. Lee Scott, Wal-Mart
President and CEO since January 2000. Joined Wal-Mart in 1979 and rose through the ranks of the company's logistics operations, including as director of transportation. Mr. Scott also serves on the board of directors for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Robert Stevens, Lockheed Martin
Former director of Monsanto Company, he joined Lockheed Martin Corporation in the 1990s and held many senior positions until being appointed the firm's chairman, president and chief executive officer in 2005.
Michael Haverty, Kansas City Southern
President and CEO of Kansas City Southern, a transportation holding company that has railroad investments in the United States, Mexico and Panama, since 2000. He is also board chairman and CEO of Kansas City Southern De Mexico.
Douglas R. Conant, Campbell's Soup
Has been Campbell Soup Company's president, CEO and director since 2001. Over 25 years experience in the food industry, notably with General Mills, Inc., Phillip Morris Companies, Inc. (Kraft), and Nabisco, where he served as president from 1995-2000. Mr. Conant is also a director of Applebee's International, Inc. and a vice-chairman and trustee of The Conference Board.
James M. Kilts, Gillette
Retired as Gillette Company CEO in 2005 after helping merge the firm with Procter & Gamble in 2004. Former president and CEO of Nabisco, Kraft Foods, and Altria. Mr. Kilts is a member of the board of directors of The New York Times, the Metropolitan Life Insurance, MeadWestvaco and serves as a member of Citigroup's International Advisory Board.
Herman Cain, Whirlpool
A director of Whirlpool Corp. since 1992 and is a member of the board of directors. Mr. Cain is also the CEO and president of THE New Voice, Inc., a business and leadership consulting company. Formerly with The Pillsbury Company, the U.S. Navy and Coca-Cola, Mr. Cain also serves on the boards of AGCO, Inc., Aquila, Inc., Reader's Digest and Hallmark Cards, and is a member of the National Commission on Economic Growth and Tax Reform.
compiled by Christina Leadlay
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=6540
he North American Union and the End of Democracy in Canada
by Kevin Parkinson
Global Research, August 13, 2007
Email this article to a friend Print this article
Unfortunately, democratic rights in Canada are quickly becoming an illusion. In a sinister plot being carried out underneath our noses, the Canadian government has been working collectively with Mexico and the United States to create the conditions for a merger into a North American Union (NAU). To date, there has been absolutely no public participation concerning this merger.
The plot will thicken even more on August 20-21 when George Bush and Felipe Calderon, the presidents of the United States and Mexico, meet Stephen Harper at the Fairmont Hotel in Montebello, Quebec. Further planning and analysis of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an informal agreement signed by the leaders of the three countries in 2005, will command center stage.
If Canadians understood the substance of the SPP they would be appalled since it is a direct threat to the existence of Canada as a sovereign country. Internal SPP documents released under FOI requests have shown that U.S. administrative law is being written in stealth to “integrate” and “harmonize” 100’s of regulations in Canada and Mexico.
As Dr. Jerome Corsi has pointed out in “The Late Great U.S.A.”, the European Union is being used as a model for the NAU. The European Union was created incrementally over a 40 year period with public disclosure, but the North American Union have been placed on an incredible 5 year timetable with no public disclosure!
Government leaders, the corporate elite and senior bureaucrats have been meeting secretly for the past 2 years to “fast track” the eventual rollout of the NAU by 2010.
The big question is: why hasn’t the Canadian government used the parliamentary process and the media to inform its citizens regarding the looming NAU?
You are forced to conclude that the mainstream media is guilty of collusion with government and corporate executives and has failed to report the context of the NAU and the implications for the future of Canada.
Essentially, the SPP lead up to the NAU is the sequel to the Free Trade Agreement and we all remember the Mulroney promises of 1989. We were to have more jobs, more prosperity, more investment and the middle class and the working class would benefit, right? Wrong. Many of the jobs and companies went south, unemployment rose, Canadian companies suffered takeovers, but the political pundits keep talking about the increased wealth in North America.
Yes, it’s true that there has been a huge increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires in North America today but what about the rest of us? The multinational corporations have done just fine, and now they are the ones who will be sitting down at conference tables in Montebello with presidents and a prime minister- changing the rules to suit themselves while no media or citizens’ groups will be allowed to observe or participate!
If you doubt this scenario will occur on August 20, I remind you that there was a blackout on media coverage at a previous SPP conference, in Banff, Alberta from September 12-14, 2006 after which Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety refused to answer any questions regarding the conference in the foyer of the House of Commons. Apparently, that conference in Banff was so secretive that the Canadian public did not have the right to learn about it.
A full discussion of the SPP is beyond the scope of this article but it is important to remember that the next decade will be all about “deregulation.” It will mean that the protections of government on which we have come to rely, will vanish into thin air. Future generations, our children and grandchildren, will ask us why we fell asleep at the switch and failed to hold our governments accountable.
The United States will become our model. Privatization and deregulation of: health care and drug safety, road construction and transportation, environmental, energy, forestry and agriculture regulations are just a few of the areas where government will abdicate its constitutional responsibility to us.
Once the corporations and government carry out this fascist coup d’etat, we can predict the results- increased prices, decreased wages and a gaping hole in our social safety net like we never imagined. It will bring an end to the middle class in Canada and bring about a huge increase in the ranks of the working poor. It will lead to a “Walmartization” of the economy.
Maude Barlow, in her recent book, “Too Close for Comfort” presents all of the frightening details of “Canada’s future within Fortress North America.”
To add insult to injury, the planners of the Montebello conference, according to Connie Fogal of the Canadian Action Party, have affirmed that U.S. troops will be coordinating security arrangements at Montebello, which include a $1 million fence to keep the expected 10,000 protesters 25 kilometers away from the secretive meeting of three so-called democracies.
George Orwell once said:
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face- forever.”
The boot of the North American Union is only 3 years from our face right now and we need to put tremendous pressure on our Canadian government to unveil its intentions, reveal its secrets and come clean.
Further articles are available on the author's website, Reality Check at www.realitycheck.typepad.com
Global Research Articles by Kevin Parkinson
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=6539
MexAmeriCanada: It's Coming: The newspapers, radio, and television have chosen to ignore the plan-introduced by the Council on Foreign Relations-to create a North American Union similar to the European Union.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/voices/200608/0809edit0.htm
Upcoming Meeting Fuels 'North American Union' Fears
CNSNews.com, VA - 19 hours ago
"It's a scheme to create a borderless North American Union under US control without barriers to trade and capital flows for corporate gains, mainly US ones ...
The North American Union and the End of Democracy in Canada Center for Research on Globalization
SPP info needed Chatham Daily News
Canadian and US Green Parties blast secretive NAFTA-Plus trade ... Green Party US (press release)
Xinhua
all 16 news articles »Internet Hunting Shows the Awful Truth about North American Union
Town Hall, DC - Aug 14, 2007
... should vote quickly to support current efforts to ban or block the dreaded “North American Union” which allegedly threatens to merge the US, ...
The Coming American Reality Check: "Night of the Long Knives" Part Two OpEdNews
all 2 news articles »North American union affects US sovereignty
Albany Times Union, NY - 19 hours ago
They want to form a North American union with Mexico and Canada -- similar to the European Union, which will undermine US sovereignty.
Media advisory - North American opposition to debate SPP at public ...
Canada NewsWire (press release), Canada - Aug 14, 2007
... the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Common Frontiers, the Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), The National Union of ...
Mexico, US, Canada leaders to meet on Aug. 20-21 in Canada
Xinhua, China - 2 hours ago
MEXICO CITY, Aug. 15 (Xinhua) -- US President George W. Bush, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will stage a ...
Corporate governance
Toronto Star, Canada - 19 hours ago
In her column about the upcoming Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Que., Carol Goar claims that the Council of Canadians is ...
We need a dialogue, not protests
Toronto Star, Canada - Aug 13, 2007
To hear Maude Barlow tell it, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be sacrificing Canada's energy security, weakening its environmental safeguards and ...
Canadian and US Green Parties blast secretive NAFTA-Plus trade ...
Green Party US (press release), DC - 1 hour ago
Canadian and US Greens campaign against 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' and plan cross-border Counter Summit when heads of state of ...
Yes, Virginia (Dare), There Is An SPP. And It Means (Big) Business
VDARE.com, VA - 1 hour ago
This weekend, August 20-21, President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon meet in Montebello, Quebec, ...
SPP info needed
Chatham Daily News, Canada - 14 hours ago
Ever heard of Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? If you say "no," don't feel bad, as you certainly aren't alone. ...
SPP approval disastrous
Peterborough Examiner, Canada - 14 hours ago
On the weekend of Aug. 18, US President George Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon are visiting Prime Minister Harper in Montebello, Quebec. ...
Upcoming Meeting Fuels 'North American Union' Fears
CNSNews.com, VA - 19 hours ago
By Nathan Burchfiel (CNSNews.com) - An upcoming meeting among President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon ...
Bush, Harper and Calderon meeting in Montebello, Quebec - Scrap ...
Indymedia.org - 22 hours ago
From August 20-21, 2007, George Bush (President of the USA), Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) and Felipe Calderon (President of Mexico) will be in ...
No Guarantee of Peaceful Protests
580 CFRA Radio, Canada - Aug 14, 2007
A coalition of groups protesting next week's North American leaders' summit is unveiling its plans. Celeste Cote with the Outaouais-Ottawa Stop The SPP ...
Will Security and Prosperity Partnerships End Dissent as We Know It?
ZNet, MA - Aug 14, 2007
by Chuck Kaufman Disastrous free trade agreements continue to drive small farmers off their land, condemn the poor to dead-end sweatshop jobs, ...
Shortsighted '80s politics now compromising northern sovereignty: experts Randy BoswellCanWest News Service
Friday, August 10, 2007
It's the ghost ship of Canada's Arctic dreams - a 180-metre-long, 100,000-horsepower leviathan that would have been the biggest icebreaker in the world, a pride-stirring symbol of national resolve to assert sovereignty over our vast northern frontier.
But the Polar 8 -- promised in 1985 by a Conservative government reeling from the unauthorized transit of a U.S. icebreaker through the Northwest Passage -- never made the journey from blueprint to deep blue sea.
A victim of federal budget cuts and serious miscalculations about the future significance of the Arctic, the ship meant to embody Canada's identity as a circumpolar power -- and which might have sailed triumphantly to Baffin Island this week to the site of a new deep-water Arctic seaport to be announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- sank quietly out of sight in 1989.
In the wake of last week's controversial but impressive Russian flag-planting expedition to the North Pole seabed, and amid rising tensions between five polar nations -- Canada, the U.S., Russia, Norway and Denmark -- over the future ownership of the huge oil and gas deposits that lie beneath the Arctic Ocean seafloor, the Polar 8 would have given Canada a serious upper hand in the emerging scientific, economic and diplomatic battle for the Arctic.
Instead, 22 years after former foreign affairs minister Joe Clark committed to spending $500 million to build the Polar 8 -- because, he said, his government was "not about to conclude that Canada cannot afford the Arctic" -- the country will wait another five years or more for the delivery of Harper's newly promised $3-billion fleet of limited-range Arctic patrol boats, none with the all-weather capabilities or symbolic power of the Polar 8.
By then, it will be too late to help Canadian scientists forced to hitch rides on foreign icebreakers and worried about meeting a strict 2013 deadline, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, for submitting geological evidence to secure crucial extensions to Canada's territory on the Arctic continental shelf.
And the new Canadian ships still won't be able to match the ice-carving feats of the Polar 8-sized nuclear icebreaker that cleared a path to the North Pole for Russia last week, helping that country gather data for its own seabed claims.
"Had the Polar 8 been built, we would not be in this bind," says Michael Byers, Canada's leading expert on Arctic sovereignty and the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia.
"In the Arctic scientific community, there is a deep regret that we do not have that vessel right now."
Initially authorized for study in the days of Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau, the Polar 8 became a top priority of Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government in 1985, following widespread criticism of its handling of the Polar Sea incident, the unauthorized passage of a U.S. nuclear-powered icebreaker through Canada's Arctic waters.
Announced in the House of Commons on Sept. 10, 1985, as part of an eloquent decree from Clark on Canada's renewed Arctic ambitions, the Polar 8 was touted as symbolizing the government's intent "to maintain the natural unity of the Canadian Arctic archipelago and to preserve Canada's sovereignty over land, sea and ice - undiminished and undivided."
"The Arctic," Clark intoned to rousing applause, "is not only a part of Canada, it is a part of Canadian greatness."
But almost as quickly as it was given life, the Polar 8 dream began dying a slow death, marked by hand-wringing over whether Quebec or B.C. shipbuilders would get the contract, whether the coast guard or Canada's military would be the proper custodian of the giant icebreaker, and whether - despite Clark's repeated assurances the cost of the vessel was not too great for the national interests it would serve - the country could really afford such a pricey Arctic juggernaut.
Yet, by 1987, federal transport minister John Crosbie and international trade minister Pat Carney were still declaring the government's resolve to build the ship as they announced the start of negotiations for a construction contract with Vancouver-based Versatile Pacific Shipyards, promising hundreds of jobs to the province and a shining new symbol of Canadian know-how and globe-girdling ambition.
Not only would the Polar 8 patrol Canada's Arctic waters, support scientific survey work and race to the scene of oil spills or similar disasters, it was also to be built with long-range ocean-going capabilities, enabling "possible deployment to Antarctica" for research and other purposes at the planet's other Pole.
But, by 1988, questions were piling up about the cost of the Polar 8 - pegged then at almost $700 million. Still, as late as May 1989, Mulroney offered his personal assurance that the icebreaker would be built, calling it "a very important instrument for the assertion of sovereignty in northern Canada, which had been lacking for many years."
Finally, in February 1990, Mulroney's finance minister, Michael Wilson, announced the death of Canada's polar ship of state, declaring it strategically obsolete and economically unjustified.
"The government has decided to terminate the Polar 8 icebreaker project due to significant increases in the estimated costs and changes in the international environment," he said, referring to the end of the Cold War and a Canada-U.S. co-operation agreement that was expected to put disputes about Canada's Arctic sovereignty to rest, once and for all.
But as the 1990s progressed, and "changes in the international environment" came to mean global warming and melting Arctic ice, economic and diplomatic interest in northern shipping and seabed rights intensified.
Canada clashed with the U.S. frequently over the Northwest Passage. Soon, scientific teams in several countries with Arctic coasts - including Canada and Russia - were racing to meet UNCLOS deadlines to secure potentially lucrative extensions to their northern continental shelves.
Yet Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien, who had mocked Clark's 1985 promise of the Polar 8 and other investments in Arctic sovereignty as too little, too late, failed during his decade in power to get an all-weather icebreaker built.
This week, the federal scientist leading Canada's continental shelf research admitted the project could be "in trouble" because of unpredictable Arctic ice conditions and the tight 2013 deadline for the submission of evidence.
Among the problems faced by Canada's scientific team - which is being counted on to challenge territorial claims by Russia and other Arctic nations - is the lack of icebreakers capable of plowing through the thickest parts of the polar cap.
Jacob Verhoef, director of the Atlantic division of the Geological Survey of Canada, said in an interview that all but the largest of Canada's icebreakers - the Louis S. St-Laurent, built in 1969, with less than a third of the horsepower and tonnage of the proposed Polar 8 - lack "the deck space" to accommodate the equipment needed to chart the Arctic Ocean seafloor: "They were not built for this."
But the Polar 8 would have been big enough, says UBC's Byers. He's still pushing for construction of two fully equipped, heavy-duty icebreakers that could go "anywhere, anytime" in the Arctic, rather than the "ice-reinforced" patrol vessels promised by Harper last month.
Byers is also urging Canada to make sure it completes its Arctic research program on time by renting an all-weather icebreaker from - of all places - Russia, Canada's chief competitor for Arctic territory and the nation recently derided by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay for its audacious flag-planting exercise at the North Pole.
If Canada must grovel to charter a Russian ship, says Byers, so be it. It's the price the country must pay today for not building its own full-range icebreaker when it had the chance.
"It's proof," he adds, "that we need politicians who are looking beyond the next election campaign."
© CanWest News Service 2007
Violation of International Law: The Security and Prosperity Partnership must be declared Null and Void Montebello Declaration for the establishment of the North American Compliance Court (NACC) to replace the SPP
by The Global Compliance Research Project
Global Research, August 9, 2007
Email this article to a friend Print this article
When the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the US meet in Montebello, they should reflect on the fact that one of them leads a minority government, another one was elected in an election still under dispute, still another is rapidly descending in the polls.
They should also reflect on the fact that all three come from rogue states that have generally shown disrespect for international peremptory norms.
Instead of further negotiating the SPP which entrenches the dereliction of duty towards these norms, they should establish a North American Compliance Court where citizens can take evidence of state and corporate non-compliance, and where, in the absence of compliance, charters and licences of corporation can be revoked. In relation to the SPP, it should be noted that under Article 53 of the Convention on the Law of Treaties, Treaties may come in conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens):
"A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. for the purposes of the present convention, a preemptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character."
The Security and Prosperity Partnership is described as an "agreement" rather than a treaty. [The objective is to bypass Congress] because in the United States Constitution, treaties have to be ratified by Congress whereas agreements can be acceded to by the President as a "sole executive agreement".
This "agreement" should still respect peremptory norms.
Peremptory norms can be extracted from years of international instruments to which a broad range of states, functioning under a range of legal systems, have incurred obligations, made commitments and created expectations.
Given that the Security and Prosperity Partnership, including all the subsidiary negotiations related to the SPP, will cause Canada, Mexico and the United States to further undermine peremptory norms, the SPP must be declared null and void.
In its place the three leaders at Montebello, Quebec in their meeting in August must thus abandon all further negotiations on the SPP and abide by peremptory norms which have been established to achieve the following objectives:
* to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including labour rights, civil and political rights, social and cultural rights- right to food, right to housing, right to universally accessible, not for profit health care system , right to education and social justice;
* to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development [as per Convention];
* to achieve a state of peace, social justice and disarmament; through reallocation of military expenses, and eradication of poverty
* to create a global structure that respects the rule of law ; and
* to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, respect the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose, reduce the ecological footprint and move away from the current model of overconsumptive development.
And should agree to set up and to set up a North American Compliance Court to achieve these objectives
For over 60 years states through the UN system, member states of the UN have incurred obligations through treaties, conventions and covenants, made commitments through UN Conference Action plans, and created expectation through UNGA declarations and resolutions related to furthering international law and common security.
True security is not "collective security" or "human security" which has been extended to "humanitarian intervention" and used along with the "responsibility to protect" with a view to justifying military intervention in other states. True security is "common security", not as defined in the SPP, but in documents prepared by Olaf Palme, and which entrench peremptory norms.
It is time for compliance, implementation and enforcement of these obligations and commitments.
Common security can only be achieved if there is a concerted international effort to eliminate the actions that have led to global insecurity, that no state shall compel another state to act to its detriment, and that no corporation shall be permitted to sue a state for respecting the commons, and for protecting the interests of its citizens.
[b]PROVISIONS PROPOSED FOR THE MONTEBELLO DECLARATION:
WE, leaders from Canada, Mexico, and the United States HAVE AGREED TO THE FOLLOWING:
Article 1
We will discharge obligations incurred through conventions, treaties, and covenants; and act on commitments through conference action plans related to Common security - peace, environment, human rights and social justice
Article 2
We will sign, ratify, and enact the necessary legislation to ensure compliance with, or respect for Common Security international Conventions, Covenants and Treaties.
Article 3
We reaffirm our commitment to multilateralism and oppose unilateral actions that undermine global common security, and we undertake to abandon all further negotiations on the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
Article 4
We undertake to reduce our military budgets and reallocate military expenses and transfer the savings into global social justice as undertaken through numerous UN Conference Action Plans and UN General Assembly Resolutions.
Article 5
We will no longer undermine the notion of democracy by couching a plutocracy/theocracy in democratic notions of "freedom".
Article 6
We will abandon the pre-emptive/preventive policy that has resulted in aggressive attacks on sovereign states and that has been in violation of the UN Charter article 2 and international law and is the 'supreme' international crime of a war of aggression.
Article 7
We will end the practice of mollifying public opposition by couching aggressive acts in euphemistic "operations" such as "operation just cause", Operation Iraqi freedom, "Operation Enduring Freedom" etc.
Article 8
We will withdraw immediately from any military involvement and occupation of sovereign states including Iraq and Afghanistan
Article 9
We will be willing to be judged by an international tribunal for any actions that might be deemed to violate international law, to be crimes against the peace, to be war crimes, or genocide
Article 10
We will not misuse UN "peace keeping" to clean up aggressive acts of destruction and occupation of other states
Article 11
We will undertake to sign and ratify all Geneva Protocols, including Protocol V which requires the removal of remnants of war
Article 12
We will no longer perceive justice in terms of revenge through military intervention we will instead seek justice through the International Court of Justice.
Article 13
We will no longer misconstrue Art 51 (self defence) of the Charter of the United Nations to justify premeditated non provoked military aggression, or use various pretexts for invading other sovereign states.
Article 14
We will not engage in and will oppose any attempt to undermine the international resolve to prevent the scourge of war; this would include not engaging in intimidation or in offering economic incentives in exchange for support for military intervention.
Article 15
We will invoke Chapter VI – the peaceful resolutions of disputes- and be prepared to be judged by the International Court of Justice
Article 16
We undertake to respect the mandatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice ,and will abide by its decisions.
Article 17
We will convert to peaceful purposes foreign military bases in sovereign states around the world,
Article 18
We will end the circulation and berthing of nuclear powered or nuclear arms capable vessels throughout the world.
Article 19
We will no longer engaged in "War Games" or "Military exercises" such as Exercise Trident Fury
Article 20
We will discontinue propping up and financing military dictators.
Article 21
We will abandon the practice of targeting or assisting in the assassination of leaders of other sovereign states, and engaging in "regime change" or covert destabilization of democratically elected leaders of or any leader of a sovereign state.
Article 22
We will abide by the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty and immediately implement Article VI of the treaty, (Article VI: commits all parties to pursue negotiations in good faith on measures to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve disarmament.) and we will end the production of all weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical, and biological, as agreed to in UNCHE in 1972, and in specific conventions.
Article 23
We reaffirm the obligations under the 1967 the Outer space Treaty to ensure that exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind [humanity]; and we will discontinue the research, development and installation of Ballistic Missile Defence technology.
Article 24
We make a full commitment to disarmament and oppose the continued profit making from the sale of arms, will implement obligations to reduce the trade in small arms and in collaboration with the ILO will fund a fair and just transition program for worker currently working in the arms trade.
Article 25
We will end the production of land mines and sign and ratify the Convention for the Banning of Landmines, and affirm a commitment of funds and continuous effort to remove land mines from all areas of the world where land mines are known to exist.
Article 26
We will suffocate the production of uranium, phase out the use of civil nuclear energy, and prohibit the use of weapons such as Depleted Uranium and cluster bombs that would be prohibited under the Geneva Protocol II.
Article 27
We oppose NATO'S first strike policy, and support the disbanding of NATO, and NORAD.
Article 28
We will abide by the Geneva conventions on the treatment of civilians, and respect international human rights and humanitarian law.
Article 29
We will abide by the Convention against Torture through Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and end the practice of rendition of citizens and will abide by the Geneva conventions.
Article 30
We will eliminate cruel and inhumane punishment such as capital punishment, which violates accepted international norms.
Article 31
We will abandon institutions and agreements which promulgate globalization, deregulation and privatization; these institutions and agreements undermine the rule of international public trust law, and condone and actively facilitate corporations benefiting and profiting from war.
Article 32
We oppose the promulgation, globalization, deregulation and privatization through trade agreements, such as the WTO/FTAA/NAFTA etc that undermine the rule of international public trust law, and we will support global fair trade
Article 33
We abandon the IMF structural adjustment program which has led to the violation of human rights, has exploited citizens in the developing world and has adversely impacted on vulnerable and indigenous peoples around the world.
Article 34
We oppose the privatization of public services such as water and health care, we will increase funding to Universities to counter the corporate funding of education including the corporate direction of research and declare that research must be arms length and not tied to government or corporations.
Article 35
We will finally implement the long standing international commitment to transfer .7% of the GDP for overseas aid, and to cancel third world deb.
Article 36
We will no longer subsidize and invest in companies that have developed weapons of mass destruction, that have violated human rights, that have denied social justice, that have exploited workers, and that have destroyed the environment.
Article 37
We will implement the commitment made to ensure that corporations, including transnational corporations comply .. with international law, and that they pay compensation for any previous health and environmental consequences of their actions.
Article 38
We will revoke charters and licences of corporations that have violated human rights, including labour rights, that have contributed to war and violence, and that have led to the destruction of the environment.
Article 39
We support Mandatory International Ethical Normative (MIEN) standards and enforceable regulations to drive industry to conform to international law, and oppose corporate "voluntary compliance".
Article 40
We will enforce the provisions in the Convention to prevent disasters, and will not embrace the acceptance of weaker proposals which would result in "reducing disasters"
Article 41
We will oppose all proposals such as those in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, which will result, through the practice of harmonization, in standards' and regulations' not achieving the highest tenable principles but arriving at the lowest common denominator
Article 42
We will ban substances and activities that contribute to environmentally induced diseases we will address poverty related health problems and ensure universal access, to publicly funded not for profit health care system.
Article 43
We will end the production of toxic, hazardous, atomic waste, and we will prevent the transfer to other states of substances and activities that are harmful to human health or the environment as agreed at the UN Conferences on the Environment and Development, 1992.
Article 44
We will ban the production, approval and promotion of genetically engineered foods and crops which have led to a deterioration of the food supply, and to loss of heritage seeds; and we will oppose all proposals such to supply genetically engineered food and crops to address the issue of poverty, or to contribute to the mitigation of climate change
Article 45
We will protect Biodiversity by signing and ratifying the Convention on Biological Diversity and oppose "megadiversity"--resulting from genetic engineering.
Article 46
We will be forthright in acknowledging that the Biosafety Protocol is a disguised trade agreement, and serves to promote the acceptance of Genetically modified living organisms.
Article 47
We will accept the warnings of the Intergovernmental panel on Climate change, and no longer disregard obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate Change and its protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to preserve carbon sinks..
Article 48
We will counter the doubters of the issue of climate change by citing the precautionary principle contained in the legally binding Framework Convention on Climate Change;
Which reads that where there is a threat of climate change, the lack of full scientific certainty should not be used to postpone measures to prevent the threat [a paraphrase]
Article 49
We will oppose any suggestion that civil nuclear energy is the solution to climate change. {in violation of the principle that a solution should never be equally bad or worse than the problem it is intended to solve]
Article 50
We oppose the practice by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of promoting civil nuclear energy as a solution to climate change [in violation of the principle that a regulator should not a promoter be]
Article 51
We support a Forest Protocol to be linked to the Convention on Biological Diversity and to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Article 52
We will repeal anti-terrorism legislation because it violates civil and political rights, and results in racial profiling.
Article 53
We will oppose "slap suits" against public participation, and will no longer target, intimidate and discriminate against activists on the grounds of political and other opinion (a listed ground in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights}
Article 54
We will clearly distinguish legitimate dissent from criminal acts of subversion.
Article 55
We will end all discrimination on the following grounds:
- race, tribe, or culture;
- colour, ethnicity, national ethnic or social origin, or language; nationality, place of birth, or nature of residence (refugee or immigrant, migrant worker);
- gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or form of family, [including same-sex marriage]
- disability or age;
- religion or conviction, political or other opinion, or - class, economic position, or other status.
Article 56
We will end the discrimination against immigrants, and refugees and we sign and ratify the Convention for the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families; and the Convention on Refugees.
Article 57
We will fully abide by ILO Convention related to indigenous rights, and will not longer engaged in practices that destroy the lands of indigenous people or that are deemed to be inappropriate
Article 58
We will respect women's reproductive rights, and abide by commitments made under the International Conference on Population and Development, and the Beijing Platform, and we will sign and ratify the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, and its protocols.
Article 59
We oppose religious extremism and proselytizing including the spread of Evangelical Christianity around the world, which has undermined local indigenous cultures, instilled fear through the dangerous, belief in the "rapture", "Armageddon" and "left behind", has promulgated dispensationalist "end times" scenario which has serious irreversible
consequences. and has led to the denigrating other established beliefs and practices.
Article 60
We will abide by all of the ILO Conventions, including the provisions related to the right to strike, and the right to equal pay for work of equal value
Article 61
We support the institution of an International Court of Compliance linked to the International Court of Justice; The Court of Compliance will hear evidence from citizens of state non compliance.[/b] Article 62
We will set up the North American Court of Compliance (NACC) where citizens can take evidence of state and corporate non-compliance, and where, in the absence of compliance, charters and licences of corporation can be revoked.
Proposed by the Global Compliance Research Project
For further information: contact: Joan Russow PhD at jrussow@gmail.com
Canada and Bush's North American Union Project
by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay
Global Research, August 9, 2007
thenewamericanempire.com/
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President, Farewell Address, Jan. 17, 1961
“An agreement [with the U.S.] to harmonize trade, security, or defence practices would, in the end, require Canada and Mexico to … cede to the United States power over foreign trade and investment, environmental regulation, immigration, and, to a large degree, foreign policy, and even monetary and fiscal policy.”
Roy McLaren, former liberal trade minister
Look for a very strong backlash coming from the Canadian people, but also from the American and Mexican people, once they clearly understand what the Bush-Calderon-Harper trio has been concocting in near complete secrecy and with nearly no public debate whatsoever, over the last few years.
Indeed, the three relatively unpopular governments presently in charge in Washington, Ottawa and Mexico, have aligned themselves with very large corporations, most of them American owned, to lay the foundations for a new North American Union, (NAU) also called the "Deep Integration" project. This would be a new permanent alliance that would be de facto placed under American control. Canada and Mexico would have to harmonize many of their laws and regulations to suit the interests of big business and the undemocratic and imperial ambitions of the U.S. government around the world.
With such a plan for an enlarged continental integration at both the economic and political levels, we are far from the initial program of fair and free trade for goods and services and for removing barriers to trade between the three countries, as initially envisaged by the 1988 Free Trade Agreement, (FTA) between Canada and the United States. It has to be remembered that under the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada not only accepted that Mexico be incorporated into the North American free trade zone, but made substantial concessions regarding the Investment Canada Act's rules for American take-overs of Canadian companies and for a privileged American access to Canadian energy resources. This should have sufficed to keep the American market open to Canadian exporters. It seems that this is no longer the case. Large corporations and the U.S. administration alike want to take advantage of the terrorist threat to go much further in extracting concessions from Canada.
Indeed, under the leadership of large American owned corporations, which operate freely on both sides of the border, and with the new security concerns of the U.S. administration, the initial trade objective is being further expanded and pushed to a much higher level. The idea now is to turn the trade agreements into some sort of an umbrella political organization that would be parallel to the 27-nation European Union.
In fact, it could mean a more ambitious project that could go even further than the EU toward economic and political integration in North America. In Europe, the more than two dozens participating countries have retained control over their armed forces and over their foreign policies and, what is very important, no single country exercises a hegemonic control over the entire alliance. —That would not be the case in North America, however, because of the overwhelming importance of the United States vis-a-vis the other two countries.
Indeed, what has been advanced for Canada, Mexico and the United States—three countries very much dissimilar in populations, cultures and outlooks—could go as far as de facto merging the armed forces and foreign policies of all three countries to form a sort of Fortress North America under the protectorate of the United States. Any such deep integration beyond trade relationships would place the United States and its government in the driver's seat, with the other two countries somewhat relegated to the status of near political and economic colonies.
It won't work. —For one thing, the Canadian people will never accept that Canada become a colony of the United States, and the current minority government of Stephen Harper could pay dearly politically if it continues pushing in that direction. Canadians do not want their armed forces and their foreign policy to be de facto merged with those of imperial America. Moreover, they do not want their natural resources to be placed under U.S. control and exploited nearly completely by large American corporations, which have little regard for Canada's sovereignty and little concern for the welfare of Canadians. Also, they do not want the Canadian dollar ditched in favor of a less and less attractive U.S. dollar, as some have suggested.
However, all this could be the end result of the secretive efforts that have been deployed at the highest levels under the disguise of the mysterious acronym of "SPP", the so-called program of Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, also referred to by its proponents as "Deep Integration". This integration initiative was officially launched in a summit meeting between George W. Bush (USA), Vicente Fox (Mexico) and Paul Martin (Canada), held in Waco Texas, on March 23, 2005.
Large Canadian corporations and not so "Canadian" corporations any more—such as Alcan, about to be sold to British owned Rio Tinto—and many Canadian subsidiaries of American corporations have been the driving force behind the push for a North American Union. In Canada, they are regrouped within the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), which has been lobbying the Harper government in favor of the plan. —Among the 150 corporate members of the Canadian Council of CEOs, along side large Canadian banks and corporations, one finds many leading American corporations that have branches or subsidiaries in Canada, such as du Pont, Fed X, General Electric, General Motors, Chrysler, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, IBM, Imperial Oil, Kodak, 3M, Microsoft, Pratt & Whitney, Suncor, Wyeth, Xerox, etc. —These CEOs do not really see Canada as a country separate from the United States, but more as an adjacent market to be occupied and controlled.
It was four years ago, in January 2003, that the CCCE launched its North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI). The politicians then followed suit. The CCCE's initiative advanced a strategy comprising five major elements:
1- The Reinvention of Canada-U.S.-Mexico borders;
2- The Maximization of regulatory efficiencies;
3- The negotiation of a comprehensive continental resource security pact;
4- The negotiation of a North American defence alliance;
5- And the creation of a new institutional framework for this new North American Union.
Then the Canadian Council of CEOs enlisted the support of two other organizations, first, the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, a foreign affairs outfit that has been strongly supportive of George W. Bush's war against Iraq and, second, the Mexican Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
Their joint task force, called the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, issued a report in May 2005, whose title was "Building a North American Community." The report contained 39 specific recommendations aimed at de facto erasing borders and at creating a single North American economic and security space within a North American political partnership, involving the United States, Canada and Mexico.
In a nutshell, the Task Force’s central recommendation was to establish, by 2010 (only three years from now!!!), a North American economic and security community, the North American Union, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and a common outer security perimeter, including a common border pass.—That is the essence of the proposed new "Deep Integration" project: One market, one economic border, and one official security apparatus. Nobody is talking yet of "one flag" or "one currency", but that could come.
This proposal has been discussed at summits held by the leaders of the three involved countries, first in Waco, Texas, in March 2005, to launch the initiative, then one year later in Cancun, Mexico, in March 2006, where it was decided to create the 30-member North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), a tri-national working group responsible for setting priorities for the SPP and to act as a stable driver of the deep integration process through changes in government in all three countries.
On August 20-21 (2007), at Château Montebello, in Montebello, Québec American President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon will again discuss the project during a third (SPP) summit. For most Canadians, until now, this trilateral initiative seemed simply to pursue the goal of facilitating trade and travel between the three countries, in a way that would not jeopardize the implementation of security measures that have become necessary in the aftermath of 9/11. For sure, if this were the only objective of such trilateral political and bureaucratic consultations (and they started in 2001) most people would understand the need, either for new physical installations at the border and/or for new administrative arrangements designed to reduce transit times, through pre-customs clearing or otherwise. They would not have the fear of seeing their government embarking in a wholesale abandon of their national sovereignty.
As of now, however, one suspects that the long lines of Canadian trucks frequently observed at the U.S-Canada border, six years after 9/11, reflect some bad faith on the part of the U.S. government. It seems to be using terrorist threats as a excuse to raise its protectionist stance and a reason for applying undue pressures on the relatively inexperienced Harper government. Canadians remember how the Bush-Cheney administration refused to follow the rulings of numerous NAFTA arbitration panels and imposed upon Canada a managed trade deal for softwood lumber trade.
In any case, the objectives being pursued by the "Deep Integration" project go far beyond shortening transit times at the border. They are much more numerous and much more controversial and risky for Canada's national sovereignty than simply building larger installations and harmonizing border controls to enhance trade and travel flows.
Indeed, the real overall goal of the "Deep Integration" project goes much further and would ultimately lead to the creation of a North American Union of a political and not only an economic nature, within which the three countries, but especially a smaller country such as Canada, could lose much of their national sovereignty. It would be an economic and political arrangement resembling the European Union, which encompasses more than two dozen countries, but in North America it is to be feared that such a union would have an imperial twist. —It would transform NAFTA into a common market and would force the two smaller partners to change all their relevant laws and regulations to conform to American laws and regulations, including toeing the American line on defense and foreign policies.
As it can be seen, we are quite far from the idea of simply having facilitated border controls for products and people. What these secret meetings are envisaging is more like a new political and comprehensive alliance between the United States, Canada and Mexico. But because of the force of gravity, this also means, in practice, that the United States will turn Canada, and to a certain extent Mexico, into quasi colonies of the U.S. —Indeed, the United States is a political elephant that does pretty much what it wants, especially under the Bush-Cheney administration, while Canada and Mexico are, at best, a small beaver in one case, and a small fox in the other. This could have the consequence of considerably reducing the quality of democratic life in Canada.
And that's where the rubber hits the road. Once a medium size country accepts to merge de facto its defence policy with the policy of a much larger one, and all the more so with the United States which is an empire, it becomes very difficult for the former to maintain an independent foreign policy. —Its national sovereignty risks being forever diminished and compromised.
Many Canadians justly fear that the kind of "Deep Integration" that is being planned and promoted in relative secrecy could lead to the abandonment of an independent Canadian foreign policy, the loss of independence of the Canadian Armed forces, and the loss of national control over Canada's national resources forcing Canada to abandon the economic rents over its oil and gas reserves, but also over its water and its hydroelectric power.
Some even fear that the next big step would be the abandon of the Canadian dollar, in favor of the U.S. dollar, and the loss of independent monetary and fiscal policies.—If this is not the case, where are the safeguards for Canada's sovereignty and independence? What are the democratic foundations of such an enlarged political union? What are the political and economic costs relative to the expected economic gains? There exists no study to my knowledge that evaluates these overall questions in order to form the basis for an enlightened public debate.
Therefore, we have to conclude that the plan for a very "Deep Integration" of Canada within North America is basically flawed, if not fundamentally democratically subversive. There has been no thorough public debate on the issue, even though the minority Harper government would certainly have to consult and persuade Canadians before tabling any special legislation that would need to be enacted before the project could be implemented.
Such a public debate has not taken place yet. On the contrary, everything seems to have been planned to keep it away from the public eye with all discussions being held behind closed doors. This should be enough to raise suspicions, even though the on-going discussions are not yet legally binding. In a more or less near future, however, the ad hoc arrangements so discussed are likely to lead to a new formal agreement or even a new treaty between the three countries. This is presently denied, but the logic of the operation militates in favor of the last option.
I personally think the issue is of such paramount importance that sooner or later we need a country-wide referendum on the entire "Deep Integration" project. A general election is not sufficient to settle such a complicated issue, because a single political party can gather a minority of votes and squeeze into power between numerous opposition parties. No fundamental democratic legitimacy for such an important political project can be obtained through a general election. For that, a special national referendum would be required so that the sovereign people can decide.
Rodrigue Tremblay is a Canadian economist who lives in Montreal; he can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com
Visit his blog site at: www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Author's Website: www.thenewamericanempire.com/
Check Dr. Tremblay's coming book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/
Rodrigue Tremblay is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rodrigue Tremblay
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=6494
North American Union demands our attention
08/18/2007
To the Editor:
Advertisement
Gallagher-McAndrew
I hope you can shed some light on the topic of the North American Union. I watch C-Span, follow the presidential debates, tune into several news programs, enjoy a variety of talk shows and read several daily newspapers. Very little is said about the NAU and how it will impact our nation. Yet President Bush is dedicated to making this a reality — if it isn’t already.
Where is Congress on this important issue? Is this to become law without congressional input? Is the voting public to be informed of this drastic change without having the opportunity to vote or voice their opinion?
Our senators are still working on immigration reform and hopefully will be able to improve on the last bill and find a solution that will help the American worker, insure our children’s future and still be affordable to the taxpayer.
The president, on the other hand, says he wants to secure our borders when in reality he is working toward free and open borders with Mexico and Canada. He has already allowed Mexican trucks to travel our roads. Less than 2 percent of them are inspected and they have few or no safety standards.
NAU will allow people and goods to flow freely across our borders. Is the plan to build the fence then knock it down in 2010? Or just fool the public into believing we intend to secure the borders?
Who will govern the North American Union? The political elite?
Americans have sacrificed and died for our country since we declared our independence from England. Today they are dying in Iraq to protect our people from attack.
Dedicated Americans have worked tirelessly to protect and improve our Constitution. Are we to sit back and see our sovereign nation fall under the influence of foreign powers?
Exactly what has President Bush agreed to with the leaders of Mexico and Canada and what impact will it have on America?
Roberta Andersen
Orwigsburg
©The REPUBLICAN & Herald 2007
http://www.republicanherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18723240&BRD=2626&PAG=461&dept_id=530483&rfi=6
Left, right unite to protest Que. summit
Julie Smyth, National Post
Published: Friday, August 17, 2007
OTTAWA -- The far right and far left will find common ground next week as representatives from both political spectrums protest the summit between Canadian, American and Mexican leaders in Montebello, Que.
An ultra-conservative U.S. group calling itself the Coalition to Block the North American Union, made up of politicians and activists, as well as singer Pat Boone, will hold a news conference in Ottawa on Monday to oppose the two-day Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting of U.S. President George Bush, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Felipe Calderon of Mexico.
Members of the group also plan on going to the meeting to voice their concerns about what they deem secretive talks. They tried, unsuccessfully, to book rooms at the high-end resort hotel where the meeting is being held under intense security. They will go along in an attempt to engage anyone in discussion about their opposition to the leaders, all of whom share conservative values. The group is to the political right of Mr. Bush.
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly
Font:
* *
* *
* *
* *
The coalition will make strange bedfellows with others protesting the summit, including the Green party and the People's Global Action Bloc, an activist organization that rejects capitalism and all trade agreements.
Howard Phillips, chairman of the U.S. coalition, said in an interview Friday that he will not engage in any violent protests or street demonstrations but is travelling to Canada to find others interested in his cause. He is upset he will not have access to the meeting or the hotel -- all protesters will be kept away from the building and grounds but the demonstrations will be videotaped and shown inside the summit meeting.
Mr. Phillips' group is opposed to a North American union and was against the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is concerned these meetings and agreements detract from each of the country's ability to achieve national independence and self-determination, he said yesterday. Mr. Phillips, who runs a public policy action group called Conservative Caucus and once worked for government agencies during the Nixon administration, said his other complaint is the "secrecy" of the talks.
He said protesters with opposite political views to his own share his concerns about the loss of independence for countries -- and have for years -- and he welcomes them all to the battle against next week's discussions.
"We share many of the concerns that people on the liberal side have on NAFTA, WTO, etc.," he said in a telephone interview.
In a press release to be released on Monday, he states: "Our message is, 'President Bush, President Calderon, Prime Minister Harper, tear down the wall of silence and let the people see what you are scheming to do.' Behind closed doors, step by step, the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and the United States are setting the stage for, first, a North American Community and, ultimately, a North American Union [NAU], in which new transnational bodies would gain authority over our economy, our judiciary, and our lawmaking institutions ... Our message is similar to the one which Ronald Reagan delivered to Mikhail Gorbachev when he said, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall.' "
On Monday and Tuesday, the three leaders will be discussing issues around security and the economy, as well as timely matters such as the mass import of products from China following the recent toy recalls. This is an annual summit that began two years ago in Texas. The impetus was to expand NAFTA but that has become less of a focus following public opposition and protests.
Mr. Phillips' coalition is made up of about 100 U.S. politicians and conservative public policy advocates. Tom DeWeese, president of the American Policy Center and John McManus, president of the John Birch Society, will be at the Ottawa press conference and Congressman Virgil Goode, Jr., the chief sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 40, which opposes the North American union and "NAFTA Superhighway," will participate through video conference.
Crooner Pat Boone, as well as U.S. Congressmen Ron Paul and Walter Jones will be issuing statements of protest.
National Post
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0bc7c51e-c702-4778-baa0-f3d62ad7ad91&k=9984
Agency backs opening border to long-haul Mexican trucks
By Paul M. Krawzak
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE
August 18, 2007
WASHINGTON – A federal transportation agency yesterday defended President Bush's plan to open the border to long-haul Mexican truck traffic in a response to overwhelmingly negative public views of the proposal.
The 27-page defense appearing in the Federal Register advances the controversial cross-border trucking pilot program one step closer to implementation.
Online: To read the full government report, click on: http://www.access.gpo.gov/ su_docs/fedreg/ a070817c.html
Scroll down to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and click on link to "NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions."
Bush has sought to conduct the program as part of his effort to comply with a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement requiring the United States and Mexico to open their borders to each other's commercial trucks.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which would conduct the program, acknowledged that the vast majority of the more than 2,300 public comments it received were opposed to the proposed one-year experiment.
But the agency argued that it is committed to making sure Mexican truck drivers obey all U.S. rules and regulations during the trial. The program would allow up to 100 Mexican carriers to send trucks into the United States.
Opponents – including the Teamsters union, other trucking and safety organizations and dozens of lawmakers – contend that Mexican drivers would pose a hazard on U.S. highways and would displace American truck drivers because they work for lower wages.
Advertisement
Currently, Mexican trucks can only travel within a 25-mile border zone in the United States. U.S. trucks are barred from entering Mexico.
The agency sought public comment last June, after making changes to the pilot program to comply with additional safeguards mandated by Congress in an emergency spending bill.
The agency responded to critics' worries that Mexican truck drivers, unlike their American counterparts, are not required to comply with rules limiting their driving time or mandating drug and alcohol testing, among other issues.
U.S. officials said that since 2000, Mexican truckers have been required to keep logbooks showing how long they have been on the road in case they are pulled over.
The drivers are limited to eight hours of driving during the day and seven hours at night, the government said. They also can accumulate up to three hours of overtime a day, three times a week.
The agency said it has “extensive experience” enforcing the hours-of-service rules for Mexican carriers who drive within the restricted border zone.
While Mexico does not require drug and alcohol tests, officials said the pilot program requires Mexican truckers certified to drive in the United States to undergo the testing.
“Because there presently are no U.S.-certified collection facilities and laboratories in Mexico, Mexico-domiciled long-haul carriers must comply by using collection facilities and certified laboratories in the United States, just as their border commercial zone counterparts have done for a decade,” the Federal Register report said.
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, a national trade association representing small trucking companies, criticized the administration for proceeding with its plans despite widespread opposition.
“They are determined to open our highways to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies and truck drivers regardless of the concerns that have been raised by Congress and the American people,” said Todd Spencer, the organization's executive vice president.
U.S. officials said they plan to implement the program as soon as they receive a required report from the Department of Transportation's inspector general and address any concerns raised in the report.
A spokeswoman for the inspector general declined to say when the report would be released.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070818-9999-1b18mextruck.html
Controversy follows three-country accord into Canada
National Post, Canada - 4 hours ago
To some, it is a "corporate coup d'etat," a conspiracy by big business to turn Canada into the 51st state by stealth. Others see it as a plot to destroy the ...
US Embassy: Myths and facts about the Security and Prosperity ...
National Post, Canada - 21 hours ago
As representatives from all across the political spectrum prepare to set aside their differences to protest the "secretive talks" taking place at the ...
Where's the transparency in the 'Security' and 'Prosperity ...
Globe and Mail, Canada - Aug 16, 2007
On Aug. 20 and 21, the leaders of Mexico, Canada and the United States will meet in Montebello, Que., to discuss the so-called Security and Prosperity ...
Post a Comment