|
North America Security and Prosperity Partnership |
|
|
Policy and International Politics
|
|
Saturday, 08 December 2007 |
If being against the North American Union makes you a conspiracy theorist,
Does being for it make your a conspirator? The thing is, even talking about it may land a bad label on you and the media has done little to expand knowledge of this topic. In fact, the media strategy has been to denounce any mention of this as an election-year conspiracy theory. Opinions range from: the end of U.S. sovereignty; to a completely bureacratic attempt to increase trade & security; to the inevitability of globalist one-world government.
Regional and continental integration seems almost inevitable in a forward-looking view of global politics. The EU, ASEAN, and the rise of India and China are all showing signs of success through increasing ultra-national consolidation.
In America, the results of NAFTA aren't so certain. While many Americans complain about the effect of the "free-trade" agreement, it is very difficult to say whether this policy alone has been a net gain or net loss to the American people. As far as jobs go, the last decades have been marked by outsourcing to all corners of the globe - not just to Mexico. Likewise, many Americans complain about price crunches and stagnant wages today and blame immigrants, but a lot of this also has to do with under-reported inflation, currency devaluation, and excess government spending (especially on expensive military operations).
Now Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. have definitely been having meetings to work out shared policy concerns. Let's see what the White House has to say about these meetings, and attempt to understand what's going on:
White House Press Release and Statements from August 21, 2007 meeting The primary purpose of this latest meeting, according to the White House press release, can be broken down into four goals:
- a North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza;
- a Regulatory Cooperation Framework;
- an Intellectual Property Action Strategy; and
- a Trilateral Agreement for Cooperation in Energy Science and Technology.
The focus here seems to be on planning for disasters, legal issues (particularly intellectual property), and economic problems that cross national boundaries. Regarding energy, the agreements seem to indicate that the nations have shown a willingness to share new technology and energy expertise. But there's one thing I think the White House is doing extremely poorly at:
"Inform our citizens and civil society and receive input on our collaborative efforts under the SPP framework, the governments of Mexico and Canada hosted seminars with academics and specialists on the three countries as part of an ongoing public policy consultation process regarding the future of North America."
Like I've mentioned earlier, the media has denounced anyone who claims the very existance of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) framework. Few people, even online, care to discuss the SPP - and many times the ones who will discuss it cannot even agree on what it is they are discussing. The dialogue from Washington to the American people is virtually non-existant.
From the Counil on Foreign Relations Report regarding a North American "Community," we can find a slightly more amitious plan: Building a North American Community
Page 25:
"the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity."
"Its 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." Council on Foreign Relations Suggestions:
- Implement a North American bio-metric identification card
- Move toward unified military training and exercises among the three nations
- Create a joint security perimeter around the North American continent
- End barriers on the travel of people, goods, and raw materials within North America
- Create a uniform tariff around the North American community
- Plan for and finance the growth of the Mexican economy
It is important to note that the Council on Foreign Relations' plan is not officially endorsed by any elected political leaders. It represents an academic review and proposal. Although the CFR is an influential group, they must still work through the legislative and executive process like anyone who wishes to have a say in U.S. policy.
What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Trust Us! I can see the obvious benefits in such a plan. Sharing energy technology with Mexico will improve their economic productivity and give us a wealthier neighbor to trade with. Co-ordinating rescue efforts in cross-border medical and geological disasters makes perfect sense. Building new roads that speed up international trade is a no-brainer. Even in the more extreme CFR proposals, I can understand the efficiency and security of a unified North American border perimiter, guarded by a combined force of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican forces. Bio-metric, continental ID cards would allow instantaneous cross-border immigration back-ground checks. So what is anyone worried about? Well its fair to be wary of anything that increases power - even if you are the theoretical beneficiary of such power. The North American SPP or Community or whatever, is going to be the largest semi-integrated economy in the world. IF there ever is to be a united currency (big if), it would probably dominate FOREX trades until something else so dramatic were to take place. With increased military co-ordination, the U.S.A.'s already dominant forces would only gain numbers and resources and new avenues to discover foreign intelligence. "Border control" would require more naval and air-based resources watching the North American shores. But the biggest question remains, will the rights and liberties of the American people be preserved? Will there truly be discussion and education on this topic that is an inevitable factor in our international and domestic policy future? What makes anyone think that the American people would willingly go for a long-term strategy of increasing immigration throughout North America? I can understand the concerns of those who are worried about such trilateral agreements. The people, the citizens, are charged with a civic duty of overseeing and moderating the government. Politicians are, "public servants" after all, and not our masters. When such a topic is poorly publicized by the government and treated with ridicule in the media, there is no way for the people to exercise their civic duty. Frustration and skepticism are a natural reaction to such an under-reported government decision.
|
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 09 April 2008 )
|
