Is the
Security and Prosperity Partnership the beginning of a North American
Union?
By Tom DeWeese
February 09, 2007
Is our government working quietly to
create the equivalent of a North American Union - much on the lines of
the European Union?
Some charge that such a Union will eventually
override our Constitutional government, our judicial system, our
economic system and even our currency, which, some speculate, will be
replaced by something called the Amero. Can it be possible?
Others say such charges are just another trumped-up
conspiracy theory of a lunatic fringe.
I can't possibly address every issue and describe
the complete history of the situation in our short time together, but
I can go over the highlights and give you an idea as to why many of us
are greatly concerned and, in fact, believe we are entering the fight
of our lives.
Here's a quick run down.
On March 23, 2005 President Bush met with Mexican
President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in what
was officially described as a "Summit." The three leaders
then announced the signing of an agreement to create common policies
concerning various economic and security issues among the three
nations.
The initiative is called the Security and Prosperity
Partnership or the SPP.
Its purpose?
According to a joint statement from the three
leaders, the SPP is to:
"... establish a common approach to security
to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond
to threats within North America, and further streamline the security
and efficient movement of legitimate low-risk traffic across our
shared borders."
Desirable or not, such an undertaking represents a
radical change in how the three nations interact and cooperate with
each other. It is a matter of changed foreign policy, monetary policy,
and military policy.
Yet there has been no Congressional oversight or
authorization for the undertaking. No funds appropriated.
Meanwhile, since that Summit in 2005, at least 20
working groups have been organized under the SPP to produce
memorandums of understanding and trilateral declarations of agreement
covering nearly every issue affecting our daily lives.
Whether or not you accept the idea that a North
American Union is being established, clearly, it must be acknowledged
that a new layer of tri-national government bureaucracy is being
created.
As you know, the major debate in the U.S. today is
over border security. Our nation is being flooded with hordes of
illegal aliens. They are over-burdening our schools, hospitals, and
social services.
In many parts of the nation, hospitals and services
are being forced to shut down, damaging the quality of life of
American citizens.
On top of the illegal alien situation, we face
danger from the threat of terrorists, as Americans are forced to
surrender liberty in the name of fighting this threat.
And there is the flood of illegal drugs pouring over
the border, straight into our kid's schools.
More than 80 percent of the American people have
demanded that something be done to secure the borders.
Yet, the Administration has fought efforts to close
the border. Why? It appears obvious, in light of agreements made in
the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
The SPP calls for "harmonizing" our
borders into one seamless entity called North America.
So, under what authority are more than 16 government
agencies being organized to create the SPP?
As reported by Congressman Ron Paul:
"According to Administration officials,
"...The SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather
it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of
Canada, Mexico, and the United States... "What is a dialogue?
We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional
oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments
in recent history is non-existent. Congress has no role at all in
this "dialogue." According to the SPP, this
"dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to
"coordinate" border security, health policy, economic
trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico,
Canada, and the United States."
"As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA-and
CAFTA-like agreements, that have far less to do with the free
movement of goods and services than they do with government
coordination and management of international trade."
Congressman Paul went on to say the SPP is "an
unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several
governments."
It is important to note that administrators of NAFTA
and CAFTA are major participants in SPP working groups. Thus the
connection to these trade agreements is obvious and substantial.
According to Article 5.11, under the NAFTA
agreement, participating nations must reform their laws to NAFTA
regulations.
The United States Supreme Court has held that the
U.S. government cannot hide behind a claim of federalism to avoid its
"international obligations."
NAFTA, then, appears to be the governing entity for
the SPP. That means NAFTA regulations (and ultimately SPP regulations)
will supersede U.S. laws. NAFTA courts (and ultimately, SPP courts)
will overrule U.S. courts. And NAFTA policy (and ultimately, SPP
policy) will override U.S. labor, energy, environmental, health and
economic policy.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership is basically
NAFTA-on-steroids.
But how will the Administration move forward to
fully implement the SPP without Congressional oversight?
Answer: Fast Track.
Renewed again in 2002, President Bush has been given
by Congress the power to freely negotiate treaties and trade
agreements with foreign nations.
According to the lobbying group, Public Citizen, the
bottom line of Fast Track is that "the White House signs and
enters into trade deals before Congress ever votes on them. Fast Track
also sets the parameters for congressional debate on any trade measure
the President submits, requiring a vote within a certain time, with no
amendments and only 20 hours of debate."
Mexican economist Miguel Picard wrote in an article
published in the foreign press detailing the "deep
integration" planned for North America. He said there will be no
single treaty and nothing will be submitted to legislatures of the
three countries. Instead, he says, the plan for a "merged
future" will be implemented through the signing of regulations
not subject to citizen review.
Picard concluded by saying the schedule calls for
beginning with a customs union, then a common market, then a monetary
and economic union, and finally the adoption of a single currency.
Who benefits from the creation of such a union?
Multinational corporations.
They are the driving force behind its creation. They
seek one currency, one set of rules, one controlling entity - to
enable them to move goods and services effortlessly across the border.
Above all, they do not want the public involved in
the process.
At a September meeting in Banff, Canada, top
officials from all three nations met to outline policies within topics
such as "A Vision for North America," and "Demographic
and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."
Top U.S. officials, including former Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills
were in attendance. No media was present. No details of these top
level discussions were released.
However, the Toronto Star, on September 20,
2006, reported:
"The public has been kept in the dark while
business elite have played a lead role in designing the blueprint
for this more integrated North America."
One participant at the Banff meeting didn't like
what he was witnessing. Mel Hurtig, a noted Canadian author said,
"We're talking about such an important thing, we're talking about
the integration of Canada into the United States. For them to hold
this meeting in secret and to make every effort to avoid anybody
learning about it, right away you've got to be hugely concerned."
The SPP is not about free trade. Its use of
public/private partnerships creates an elite of certain, chosen global
corporations which basically become part of government, at the expense
of their competition and our national independence.
One more major example of how this works is the
planned NAFTA Super Highway or, as it is officially called, the Trans
Texas Corridor.
This massive highway would be ten lanes wide, with
rail lines, utility corridors for natural gas and oil and power lines
running down the middle.
It is designed for containers loaded in foreign
lands, such as Asia, to arrive in Mexican ports, there to be loaded in
trucks and shipped up the NAFTA corridor through the U.S. and into
Canada.
As global corporations are now reaping the benefits
of using cheap labor in foreign lands such as China, South Korea and
Indonesia, now they want to use the NAFTA Super Corridor to reduce the
transportation costs as well.
These corporations certainly care little about
national sovereignty or security.
The borders would be little more than speed bumps.
Trucks would not be stopped and inspected. Instead, they would be
simply scanned by high-tech gamma ray screening in drive-by
inspections.
Nor do they care about private property ownership in
their drive for cost cutting.
In Texas alone, some 584,000 acres of private land
is scheduled to be taken by eminent domain for the highway. Texas
Department of Transportation has the authority to use the "Quick
Take" provision, which will allow them to give notice to property
owners that they must leave their land in just 90 days.
Even if the landowner disagrees on the compensation
- and appeals the decision, they still must be off the land in 91
days.
As part of the Corridor's public/private
partnership, the Texas state government is keeping up its end of the
deal by stonewalling every effort to obtain information as to whose
property is affected. They have operated virtually in secret.
When news has leaked out about the NAFTA Highway,
Texas officials deny it, and simply say it is just improving its state
highway system.
The Trans Texas NAFTA Corridor is not, however, an
improvement project for I-35, as the state claims.
The NAFTA corridor will be a completely separate
highway - a toll road run by a foreign corporation. The state of Texas
has signed a 50-year lease with a Spanish company named Cintra. The
company will build the highway, run it and collect the tolls.
That lease contains a "no compete" clause,
meaning that I-35 cannot be expanded nor can any other non-tolled
competitive highway be improved.
Above all, as goods are shipped into Mexican ports,
use of American ports on our East and West coasts will be drastically
reduced, costing Longshoremen their jobs.
These facts are causing great concern among U.S.
labor unions. The corridor will allow free access to the U.S for
Mexican trucks, which means the containers can be moved through the
U.S. by Mexican nationals. In addition, the flood of Mexican trucks
will not be required to meet U.S. standards for safety.
These are just a very few of the details concerning
the SPP. We believe it is the beginning of the creation of a North
American Union, much on the lines of the European Union.
The game plan is very much the same. The excuse for
the EU was trade. But today, according to the former president of
Germany, 84 percent of that nation's laws now come from the European
Union.
It begins in secrecy and slowly builds
incrementally. But step-by-step, a structure is put into place - run
by communitarian law and regional governing councils of appointed,
well-connected, yet unknown and unreachable officials, hiding behind
public/private partnerships, not answerable or responsive to citizens.
This is why we fear the creation of a North American
Union.
The United States is the unique nation on earth. We
are the only nation which was created to protect our natural rights.
The greatness of the American system arises from the
fundamental principle that governments derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed.
That means that public policy must be enacted
only by elected representatives of the people. This principle ensures
that the people can remove and replace policy makers who make policy
with which the people disagree.
To harmonize this land with nations which do not
share our values and governing principles can only result in a
lessening of our liberty and our quality of life.
To do it in secret, refusing to allow us to engage
in debate before such massive changes take place - is nothing short of
treason.
See biography for Tom
DeWeese