If you think this is a pipe dream, log on to the government website and read
the governmental documents for yourself.  It is going to happen.  The
government site is

www.spp.gov

Phil.


> Subject: [CCNN] Creating the North American Union
>
>
>    *Creating the North American Union
> *by Dennis Behreandt
> October 2, 2006
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4213.shtml
>
> The plans for a North American Security and Prosperity Partnership are
steps
> on the way to a North American Union. (Tell your representative and
senators
> "NO North American
> Union!"<http://www.capwiz.com/jbs/issues/alert/?alertid=9037471>
> )
>
> On June 21, viewers of CNN's *Lou Dobbs Tonight* heard the alarming
> introduction to a segment of the program devoted to the future of the
United
> States of America. "The Bush administration's open-borders policy and its
> decision to ignore the enforcement of this country's immigration laws is
> part of a broader agenda," Dobbs intoned. "President Bush signed a formal
> agreement that will end the United States as we know it, and he took the
> step without approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the
> United States."
>
> The agreement Dobbs was talking about was crafted a year earlier. On March
> 23, 2005, then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President
> Vicente Fox met with President Bush in Waco, Texas, to discuss plans for
> integrating Canada, the United States, and Mexico. During that meeting,
the
> three heads of state argued that the three nations are "mutually dependent
> and complementary" and need to work together more closely on a range of
> issues. "In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of
> cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our
> businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient," the three
> leaders said in a joint statement.
>
> The standard diplomatic language was a prelude to a radical proposal
calling
> for the merger of the three nations in several important ways. Under a
> so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the nations will no
> longer have separate borders, but will "implement common border-security."
> The three nations will no longer respond on the national level to
> emergencies but will have a "common approach to emergency response." And,
in
> a move that has tremendous implications for the growing immigration
crisis,
> the three leaders agreed that the United States' north and south borders
> would be eliminated. Under the SPP plan, the three nations will "implement
a
> border-facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate
> flow of people and cargo at our shared borders."
>
> This plan is nothing short of revolutionary. As Dobbs put it on his CNN
> program, it is "an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution,
> every national value." Though the plan sounds like a new innovation, it is
> not new. It is the next step in a progression of steps that, in a manner
> very similar to the process used in Europe to supplant individual nations
> with the European Union, will ultimately lead to the formation of a new
> government for the United States, the North American Union. If not
stopped,
> the plan for a North American Union will supplant the former independent
> states of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. And this is not
conjecture.
> The North American Union is official U.S. policy.
>
> The European Template
>
> The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) serves as the intellectual
incubator
> for most of the foreign policy direction followed by the executive branch
of
> the federal government. Before the trilateral meeting between the heads of
> state in Waco on March 23 of last year, the CFR had already undertaken an
> initiative with its counterparts in Mexico and Canada (Consejo Mexicano de
> Asuntos Internacionales and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives) to
> study the possibility of integrating the three nations. Laying the
> foundation for the Waco meeting, the CFR produced a document entitled
> *Creating
> a North American Community: Chairmen's Statement Independent Task Force on
> the Future of North America*. The document called for "the creation by
2010
> of a community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity for all
> North Americans."
>
> The CFR is proposing nothing less than a plan to create a North American
> Union, similar to the European Union. The CFR protests that this is not
its
> intention. "A new North American community will not be modeled on the
> European Union or the European Commission, nor will it aim at the creation
> of any sort of vast supranational bureaucracy," the *Chairmen's
> Statement*said.
>
> But this is exactly the kind of statements that were made about the EU
> during its earlier phases of development. The EU got its start in 1950
with
> the plan for European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The plan was
> developed by Robert Schuman, who would become a socialist prime minister
in
> France, and French planning minister Jean Monnet in 1950. The so-called
> Schuman Plan was adopted via the Treaty of Paris in 1952. The ECSC merged
> the coal and steel industries of West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the
> Netherlands, and Luxembourg and created a supranational governing
> organization. According to Georgetown University historian Carol Quigley,
> "This was a truly revolutionary organization since it had sovereign
powers,
> including the authority to raise funds outside any existing state's
power."
> As Quigley noted, "This 'supranational' body had the right to control
> prices, channel investment, raise funds, allocate coal and steel during
> shortages, and fix production in times of surplus." In short, "The ECSC
was
> a rudimentary government," Quigley concluded.
>
> Creating a regional, supranational government was always the aim in
Europe.
> In 1990, the European Commission admitted as much in the publication
*Europe
> — A Fresh Start: *"Monetary union and economic integration are two
> long-standing ambitions which the six founding States ... set themselves."
> The document continued, describing the intent of the EU's founders: "We
see,
> then, that the institutions set up since 1950 on the initiative of Robert
> Schuman and Jean Monnet are responding well to the aim of their founders:
> broadening the scope of democratically and efficiently organized
collective
> action to cover the new arenas of interdependence among Europeans." The
end
> result of this gradual planning has been union in Europe.
>
> That union was the goal all along was not readily apparent during the
> decades of its development. The long-term aim of the ECSC was hidden by
its
> purportedly narrow scope. From its name alone, it appeared that the
> six-nation arrangement had only to do with coal and steel. Later EU
> precursors followed the same plan. The European Economic Community, at
first
> glance, appeared to be nothing more than a free trade arrangement. It was
> nevertheless founded on the Monnet doctrine that economic integration must
> precede political integration.
>
> Such deception, in fact, remained one of the key elements in crafting the
> EU, right up until recent years, a fact referenced by Villy Bergström, a
> recent former deputy of the Swedish central bank. "I have never before
seen
> such manipulated, obscure and faked policies as in relation to Swedish
> relations to the EU," Bergström wrote a few years ago. "Information has
been
> evasive and unclear, giving the impression that membership of the EU would
> mean much less radical change than what has been the case."
>
> The strategy of building the EU through piecemeal means paid off.
Following
> the creation of the ECSC, European internationalists supported by the U.S.
> government added additional elements to the emerging European superstate.
> Though they suffered setbacks — a nascent European Defense Community was
> rejected by France, and initial plans for a European Political Community
> were shelved shortly after the creation of the ECSC — those setbacks were
> temporary. The Treaty of Rome created the European Economic Community in
> 1957. The EEC was the immediate predecessor of today's European Union.
>
> An EEC for North America
>
> North American integration got its big start with the North American Free
> Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The arrangement was billed as little more than
the
> creation of a free trade arrangement between Canada, Mexico, and the
United
> States. But it really was the initial step toward regional integration.
> According to professor Guy Poitras of San Antonio's Trinity University,
one
> of the factors motivating the creation of NAFTA was the view that it was
an
> important early step toward further integration. In his book *Inventing
> North America*, Poitras noted that NAFTA's creation of regionalized
> interdependence gave "a structural foundation for the task of inventing
> North America."
>
> In a pro-NAFTA article in the *Washington Post *in 1993, William Orme, Jr.
> pointed out that the then-fledgling trade pact was indeed a steppingstone
to
> further integration. "NAFTA," Orme admitted, "lays the foundation for a
> continental common market, as many of its architects privately
acknowledge.
> Part of this foundation, inevitably, is bureaucratic: The agreement
creates
> a variety of continental institutions — ranging from trade dispute panels
to
> labor and environmental commissions — that are, in aggregate, an embryonic
> NAFTA government."
>
> That free trade agreements like NAFTA must evolve into political unions is
> taken for granted among academics that work closely with such issues. In
> 1998, Glen Atkinson, professor of economics at the University of Nevada in
> Reno, described this step-by-step process in an article entitled "Regional
> Integration in the Emerging Global Economy" in the *Social Science
Journal.
> *Integration "must be an evolutionary process of continuous institutional
> development," Atkinson wrote. Indeed, the development of supranational
> governing organs is inevitable, though it will erode national sovereignty,
> he writes. "The need for shared institutions among the parties is critical
> for integration, which will lead to a weakening of national sovereignty in
> some areas of interest. Sovereignty, however, must reside someplace in
order
> to enforce regional working conditions, intellectual and other property
> rights and other concerns." NAFTA, being a "free trade" arrangement, is
only
> a preliminary step. According to Atkinson:
>
> The lowest level of integration is a free trade area which involves only
the
> removal of tariffs and quotas among the parties. If a common external
tariff
> is added, then a customs union has been created. The next level, or a
common
> market, requires free movement of people and capital as well as goods and
> services. It is this stage where institutional development becomes
critical.
> The stage of economic union requires a high degree of coordination or even
> unification of policies. This sets the foundation for political union.
>
> Now, according to those most concerned with creating a North American
Union,
> it's time to move beyond NAFTA. Professor Robert Pastor of American
> University serves also as vice-chair of the CFR Task Force on North
America
> and is one of the primary intellectual architects of North American
> regionalism. According to Pastor, even after NAFTA, U.S. policy has been
too
> nationalistic. "Instead of trying to fashion a North American approach to
> continental problems, we continue to pursue problems on a dual-bilateral
> basis, taking one issue at a time," Pastor said in testimony to the Senate
> Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere on
June
> 9, 2005. "But incremental steps will no longer solve the security problem,
> or allow us to grasp economic opportunities. What we need to do now is
forge
> a North American Community," Pastor stated.
>
> This, in fact, has been a major goal of the Bush administration and of the
> Mexican administration of Vicente Fox. In a paper entitled *Closing the
> Development Gap: A Proposal for a North American Investment Fund*, Pastor
> and coauthors Samuel Morley and Sherman Robinson point out that Mexican
> President Vicente Fox has long advocated a North American common market.
> "Soon after he won Mexico's presidential election on July 2, 2000, Vicente
> Fox proposed a Common Market to replace the free-trade area," Pastor,
> Morley, and Robinson wrote. "He invited President George W. Bush to his
home
> in February 2001 and persuaded him to endorse 'The Guanajuato Proposal.'"
> President Bush quickly signed on to the plan. In a joint statement with
Fox
> released by the White House on February 16, 2001, Bush described the
outcome
> of the meeting. "After consultation with our Canadian partners, we will
> strive to consolidate a North American economic community whose benefits
> reach the lesser-developed areas of the region and extend to the most
> vulnerable social groups in our countries," said the Bush/Fox statement
> announcing a new "partnership for prosperity."
>
> A Deepening Union
>
> With the announcement on March 23, 2005 of the Security and Prosperity
> Partnership, the Bush administration, along with the governments of Mexico
> and Canada, has taken the next step toward a European Union-style
superstate
> in North America. The SPP features a wide range of initiatives on matters
> related to security and commerce. These include:
>
>    - Create a proto-parliament called the North American Competitiveness
>    Council. According to official SPP documents, this body will "address
> issues
>    of immediate importance" and provide "strategic" advice. It will also
>    "provide input on the compatibility of our security and prosperity
> agendas."
>
>    - Under the purported threat of an avian flu pandemic, the parties to
>    the SPP will harmonize plans for continuity of government in the event
of
> a
>    crisis.
>
>    - Begin harmonizing security organs by creating a "common approach to
>    critical infrastructure protection," and "develop and implement joint
> plans
>    for cooperation for incident response, as well as conduct coordinated
>    training and exercises in emergency response."
>
>    - Create a single energy policy for North America by "improving
>    transparency and regulatory compatibility."
>
> The SPP also has tremendous implications for immigration. As NAFTA erased
> most remaining barriers hampering the flow of capital between Canada,
> Mexico, and the United States, the SPP will look for ways to eliminate
> bottlenecks hampering the flow of people. According to the official SPP
> agenda, the new international body will work to "identify measures to
> facilitate further the movement of business persons."
>
> Specific policies likely to be followed by the SPP can be found in the CFR
> report entitled *Building a North American Community* that was released
just
> after the March 23, 2005 SPP meeting in Waco, Texas. In its
recommendations,
> the CFR report suggests, "The three governments should commit themselves
to
> the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current
> intensity of the governments' physical control of cross-border traffic,
> travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North
> American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from
> third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the
> elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these
travelers
> within North America." This goes a long way toward explaining the
maddening
> lack of urgency that is apparent in Washington concerning the issue of
> illegal immigration from Mexico. If the SPP follows the CFR template — a
> virtual certainty — there will no longer be a border to cross illegally.
>
> Moving Fast
>
> Perhaps the most important difference between the formation of the
European
> Union and the effort to build a North American Union is the speed at which
> the North American version is moving ahead. In Europe, union took decades,
> with efforts starting just after World War II and culminating in the
1990s.
> In North America, issues related to union first began only in 1965.
> According to economist Glen Atkinson, "NAFTA has evolved over several
stages
> beginning with the Canadian-U.S. automobile pact of 1965 and the
> Canadian-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989." Now, little more than a
decade
> after NAFTA comes the SPP.
>
> A measure of the rapidity with which this drive for a North American Union
> can affect the lives of citizens is the planned super highway linking the
> U.S.'s northern and southern borders. The plan for this highway is
> breathtaking. It includes plans to start construction in 2007 on the
> so-called Trans Texas Corridor, to be built in large part by a Spanish
> construction company.
>
> According to the magazine *International Construction Review*, the project
> "would be part of the 'super-highway' spanning the United States from the
> Mexican border at Laredo, making its way through Texas, Kansas and
Oklahoma
> and connecting with the Canadian highway system north of Duluth,
Minnesota.
> Because it would provide a connection all the way between Canada and
Mexico,
> the project is also described as the North American Free Trade Area
(NAFTA)
> super highway."
>
> A further measure of the speed with which a North American Union is likely
> to develop is found within the CFR's recommendations for the SPP. That
> organization, which so often drafts the foreign-policy blueprints followed
> by the federal government, calls for "the creation by 2010 of a North
> American community.... 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. Its goal will be
to
> guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America."
>
> It is incredible, but just four years from now — if the CFR template is
> followed — the United States may cease to exist as an independent
political
> entity. Its laws, rules, and regulations — including all freedoms
guaranteed
> by the Constitution — will be subject to review and nullification by the
> North American Union's governing body. Sure, the United States will still
be
> here in name. American soldiers will still fight, mostly, under the U.S.
> flag. There will be a U.S. president and both houses of Congress will
> continue to meet and pass legislation. Nevertheless, in very important
ways,
> the United States will become nothing more than a province — albeit an
> important one — in the emergent North American superstate.
>