Tuesday, April 19, 2005

More Evidence of Planned Regional Integration: The SPP

Another good contribution to our ongoing documentation of the rapidly developing New World Order, and more evidence of matters coming down to the wire faster than we could have imagined even five years ago. With the amount of information now available, even if most of it is on the World Wide Web, one really must have one's head buried in the sand not to realize that a Great Convergence, as one might call it, really is taking place: a convergence bringing together Sustainable Development, trade agreements such as CAFTA and the FTAA (on the heels of NAFTA and GATT), the increasing centralization of education (via No Child Left Behind), its headlong lurch into pure vocationalism (School-To-Work, Workforce Investment, etc.), and finally political correctness (mind control--to produce a "diversity" of slaves).


Phyllis Spivey
April 19, 2005

"Border Talks Called Disturbing." So read the headline over the report of a meeting of trinational leaders considering "a raft of bold proposals for an integrated North America." According to a "confidential internal summary," the group discussed ways to merge key policies of the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

The article might have been describing the March meeting in Texas of the leaders of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, but it wasn’t. The border story ran February 17 in the Toronto Star, dateline Ottawa. The meeting participants were academics, trade experts, former politicians and diplomats from Canada, the United States and Mexico, all sponsored by the New York- based Council on Foreign Relations.

"What they envisage is a new North American reality with one passport, one immigration and refugee policy, one security regime, one foreign policy, one common set of environmental, health and safety standards ... " said Maude Barlow, chairperson of the Council of Canadians.

Barlow’s group is described in the article as fearing that "business leaders and the politically connected are concocting plans to cede important areas of sovereignty at the behest of American business interests."

"Totally wrong," scoffed Thomas d’Aquino head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and one of the task force’s vice chairs. Barlow, however, said the discussions had added weight because the group included such political heavyweights as former federal finance minister John Manley.

It’s not hard to guess what Barlow thought a month later upon reading accounts of the Texas summit. There they were, all those "important areas of sovereignty," sacrificed on the altar of a new North American union, just as the confidential summary had indicated. And there was John Manley, describing the cozy confab as "an opportunity to be architects of the future."

When President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin emerged from their March 23 summit, they announced the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America, the SPP. Their joint press conference oozed sugary expressions about close relationships, sharing, integration, cooperation, working together, a common this and a joint that.

The key word, however, was "partnership" and in one form or another was used at least 28 times to describe a new, trilateral union intended to set an example for other hemispheric countries, they said, and advance the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Bush stressed that he had asked Congress to approve CAFTA this year.

President Bush was effusive, describing Canada and Mexico as "the neighborhood." "I will continue to push for reasonable, common-sense immigration policy with the United States Congress . . . We need a compassionate policy . . . (workers) will be able to come and work from Mexico in the United States, and be able to go home – back and forth across the border in a legal fashion."

Canadian Prime Minister Martin was big on sharing and working together, but meager with details. Nevertheless, he was firm that the new security partnership did not mean Canada would be "working together" on missile defense. Reporters didn’t question, nor did he mention, the report that Canada will soon be announcing retaliatory trade measures against certain U.S. products.

President Fox, in his comments, seemed fixated on partnerships, "a partnership for security and a partnership for prosperity, a partnership that is based on human capital (that’s you!)." The ever- petulant and meddling Mr. Fox is a litigious partner, having sued the U.S. in the world court . He’s also on the way out.

Uruguay just elected the sixth left-leaning leader in the region, which puts a majority of the region’s people under leftist, i.e., socialist governments. When asked by a reporter about the possibility of Mexicans choosing a leftist leader to replace Fox, which has been predicted, President Bush made the startling statement that every country in the hemisphere is a democracy except Cuba.

"The choice as to who will lead Mexico . . . is the choice of the Mexican people," Bush said.

Right, but must we be partners? And would someone please ask Mr. Bush for his definition of democracy?

All three leaders expressed their determination to insure a speedy flow of goods, services, and people across secure (sic) borders, but when a reporter asked President Bush about keeping a national security policy in place with a border terrorists breach at will, President Bush simply reiterated his plans to push for his temporary worker (amnesty) plan.

But if the objectives were described at the joint press conference in general terms, the implementation will be specific and sweeping. Each nation will establish 12 working groups that will take the general objectives set by the trilateral "partnership" and turn them into concrete ideas, configured and consolidated within 90 days because, according to Fox, "all of us have a sense of urgency."

The idea is to implement common strategies on virtually all public policies: business, financial services, energy, technology, infrastructure, transportation, aviation and maritime security, education, public health, water, the environment, border security, border facilitation, agriculture, trade, national security, intelligence, the food supply, and manufactured goods.

U.S. policies, merged with Canadian and Mexican policies, will become North American policies. If the U.S.Congress has any part in this sovereignty-killing North American agenda, except to play dead, White House, State Department, and GOP fact sheets on the summit omitted all mention of it.

Instead, the working groups will "set specific, measurable, and achievable goals and implementation dates," reporting back to the three heads of government with their initial report in June 2005, providing semi-annual progress reports thereafter.

U.S. working groups will be headed up by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. But one week after the conference, the new U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – darling of La Raza, the nation’s largest Hispanic un-civil rights group – beat it to Mexico to discuss law enforcement policies with Fox.

Unquestionably, the SPP constitutes a declaration of interdependence. Building on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it puts the U.S. closer to openly-open borders and a European-style Western Hemispheric union. And make no mistake: the end of the nation state means the end of individual liberty in America.

© 2005 Phyllis Spivey - All Rights Reserved

Phyllis is a researcher and freelance writer specializing in political analysis. She has been published in Lew Rockwell’s Rothbard-Rockwell Report, The Welch Report (on-line), The Orange County Register and is a regular contributer to NewsWithViews.com, The Sentinel Weekly News, Corona, California. She holds a Christian worldview and writes primarily on trade, economic, education, environmental, and immigration issues.

E-mail: SPIVEY2@infostations.com

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?