Posted on 01/14/2007 11:38:07 PM PST by NapkinUser
North American deep cooperation on many fronts already under way, reveals new official publication
WASHINGTON – The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which some have criticized as a framework for moving toward regional government between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, has laid out plans for increased regulatory cooperation between the three nations in new, full-color, trilingual publications obtained by WND.
Copies of the "2005 Report to Leaders" and the "2006 Report to Leaders" were sent to WND by several congressional offices that are beginning to take a serious interest in SPP working group activities and decision-making.
The copyright page of the 2005 report indicates that the report was co-published by the governments of the United States and Mexico, as well as copyrighted in Canada.
The 2005 and 2006 reports continue to discuss numerous memoranda of understanding and other agreements that the trilateral working groups are formulating on their own, without direct congressional oversight or any reference to being published in the Federal Register. Yet, the vast majority of the agreements reached under SPP have never been published.
The reports discuss the SPP's trilateral modification of administrative rules and regulation under the rubric of "integrating" and "harmonizing" into a "North American" structure what previously were administrative rules and regulations of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
For instance, under a heading that includes the U.N. "sustainability" language, the energy working group announces in the 2005 report that their goal is, "Creating a sustainable energy economy for North America." Justifying the working group's activity as producing "appropriate coordination" between regulators, the report concludes: "All agree that the regulatory efforts of the National Energy Board (NEB), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Comisieguladora de Energ�(CRE) will benefit from increased communication and cooperation concerning the timing and other procedural aspects of related matters that may be pending between the three agencies."
The report then calls for the announcement of a trilateral regulators' group that will meet three times a year (every four months) to discuss "issues affecting cross-border energy projects." The 2006 report notes that this "key milestone" was completed.
Some critics of the SPP see it leading toward a breakdown of national sovereignty and representative government, fearing it will lead inexorably toward a European Union-style regionalization for North America.
"Now that we see books being published by SPP, how can anyone deny that the Bush administration is involved in a process of North American deep integration?" asks Jerome R. Corsi, author and WND columnist who is writing a book on the movement. "SPP is creating North American regulations that replace and supersede U.S. regulations in a wide range of policy areas. Just the three-language format of the full color production is enough to let readers know that the Bush administration considers our appropriate regulatory scope to be North American in nature. We no longer have a U.S. energy policy, for instance, we have a North American energy policy."
Corsi, known as one of the chief critics of plans for a North American Union, said:
"Since 2001 and the formation of the Prosperity Partnership with Mexico, trilateral working group activity in North America has been gaining momentum. After the declaration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, we have a full-fledged shadow bureaucracy that is setting up the regulatory structure for what could easily evolve into a full regional government."
The North American Energy Working Group has now set up a webpage on the U.S. Department of Energy website. A January 2006 report entitled "North America – The Energy Picture II" documents that the NAEWG first met June 27-28, 2001, in Washington. Since then, there have been eight more NAEWG full working group meetings "convened in various locations of the three countries, with many more meetings of the various expert groups convened under the NAEWG agenda."
According to "North America – The Energy Picture II," NAEWG activities can be traced back to the Hemispheric Energy Ministers Meeting in Mexico, on March 8, 2001, when the heads of Natural Resources Canada, the Mexican Secretariat of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Energy "formally committed to work together to facilitate a stronger North American energy sector."
"Despite the advanced stage of SPP working group activity," Corsi said, "few U.S. congressmen or senators have any idea that SPP working groups are producing a North American regulatory structure. I still find myself going into the offices of congressmen and senators on Capitol Hill and having to work with staff to show them SPP websites they never have seen before, even though some of their bosses sit on committees that are supposed to be responsible for oversight of the SPP activities I am showing them for the first time."
"SPP is one of the best kept secrets in Washington," Corsi told WND, "even though SPP has a website, there are SPP websites embedded in the websites of many government agencies, and now SPP is publishing full-color books in three languages. Yet, nobody in Washington has bothered to hold a single SPP hearing. Meanwhile, we are being led into regional government by bureaucrats whose mission is to create North American policies, not to worry about the sovereignty of the United States."
The SPP website contains somewhat different versions of the 2005 prosperity agenda and security agenda, as well as the 2006 prosperity agenda and the security agenda.
"This is no conspiracy," Corsi continued. "Conspiracies are conducted in secret. Now, SPP even publishes books documenting the North American deep integration agenda the SPP working groups are advancing day-by-day."
The 2006 published Report to Leaders documents the following working group activity in the Prosperity Agenda:
Manufactured Goods and Sectoral and Regional Competitiveness
Movement of Goods
E-Commerce and ICT
Financial Services
Transportation
Energy
Environment
Food and Agriculture
Health
The 2006 Report to Leaders identifies the following Security Agenda initiatives, key milestones, and status of completion in the following areas:
1. Secure North America from External Threats
Traveler Security
Cargo Security
Bioprotection
2. Prevent and Respond to Threats within North America
Aviation Security
Maritime Security
Law Enforcement Cooperation
Intelligence Cooperation
Protection, Prevention and Response
3. Further Streamline the Secure Movement of Low-Risk Traffic Across Our Shared Borders
Border Facilitation
Science and Technology Cooperation
SPP is organized within the Department of Commerce. Those who want to receive copies of the printed 2005 and 2006 reports, may contact Geri Word, the administrator within the Department of Commerce who appears most responsible for organizing SPP activity.
Geri C. Word
U.S. Department of Commerce
Office of NAFTA and Inter-American Affairs
Tel: (202) 482-1545
Fax: (202) 482-5865
Email: geri_word@ita.doc.gov
Ping.
I'm disappointed...not surprised, but disappointed.
Our country is being destroyed by our own leaders.
You all might want to read this.
So, assuming the new regulations correctly implement all existing U.S. laws, what is the problem with those regulations being crafted so as to facility free trade with our nearest neighbors?
It's like complaining about two states deciding they are going to standardized the rail line widths so that the trains don't have to have their wheels swapped out at the border.
So, is this "re-write" simply changing the track widths, or is it something serious. That's the information that is necessary to understand if this is a real problem.
For example, some were upset in a thread a couple of days ago about a railroad company wanting to eliminate safety inspections on one of their trains in the United States, claiming the inspection replicated one done in Mexico for the same train.
A regulatory change eliminating the redundant inspections would be a good thing, something that should be supported by limited-government private-enterprise conservatives. But many were simply upset that "mexicans" would be inspecting our trains, and talked about how corrupt "mexicans" were and how they couldn't be trusted.
Some got confused and thought this was about cargo inspections, and bemoaned how the terrorists would buy off the "mexicans" and ship WMDs into the country.
So in the end, we had conservatives taking the side of the AFL-CIO, who of course opposed the regulatory change because they wanted to keep their union employees working on unnecessary tasks so they'd keep getting union dues to use to elect democrats to destroy our country.
So is this regulatory changes that facility the free market and remove unncessary burdens from private enterprise, or is it something else?
So, unelected and unaccountable NWO/NAU busybodies are going to hand us brand new administrative rules and regulations they expect us to follow, are they?
We shall see.
Sweet Adeline
Sweet Adeline,
My Adeline,
At night, dear heart,
For you I pine;
In all my dreams,
Your fair face beams.
You're the flower of my heart,
Sweet Adeline.
/sarc
Para inglés, oprime número dos, por favor.
Trade trumps sovereignty? Oh, wait... you said "rational."
A new catchphrase for your research:
"Globalization Adjustment Assistance"
See why the democrats and republicans support it.
Look to see who's forming the South American Union, if you're curious.
It's a shame that the national security argument, which is really the strongest argument for or against anything that exists, is diminished in such a fashion. I mean, if one does not want a Spanish-led consortium operating a tollroad in Indiana, fine. Just don't explain to me that the Spanish will interdict U.S. troop movements in case of national emergency.
In the same fashion, don't simply point at a regulation and shout "international cooperation, bad!" There's a reason automobile bumpers are the same distance off the ground. Think about it.
So you want to outsource our border security to the same country whose soldiers support Mexican drug lords when running drugs over our border ?
You think that's a good idea ? If you think our unions are corrupt (and they are), you don't even begin to understand the level at which graft is a major industry in Mexico.
You missed his point. It's not about outsourcing "border security." It's about outsourcing someone who sees if the cars are properly attached to each other.
No, I believe they inspect the contents of the car and the seals on the cars at the Border.
Do you think the Mexicans will check for the presence of illegals or drugs, or worse ? Do you think those Mexicans won't take bribes for smuggling, or succumb to the threat of violence from those in Mexico who have an illegal cargo to get across ? Shoot, we can't even keep our union guys from pilfering, so why do you think we can keep Mexican workers attentive to American national security ?
I don't think it's possible.
You "believe?" Have you ever bothered to find out?
No, the specific issue that was being discussed was SAFETY inspections, which mostly ensure that the brake lines are working and are properly attached and that the brakes are not stuck on.
Nobody wants their train brakes catching fire, so they are pretty good about making sure this inspection goes well.
One railroad has ONE train that starts in Mexico, and runs directly to a place in the United States with no stops, and therefore no connecting/disconnecting additional railroad cars. But current regulations require that this train stop at the border and get a safety inspection by american union crews. This slows down the train, costs a lot of money paid for the 2nd inspection, and clogs up the border (slowing down more trains).
This has nothing to do with inspecting cargo.
And it illustrates the advantage of working together. If we can ensure that the safety inspection checklists are the same in Mexico, America, and Canada, we don't have to inspect everything everytime it crosses the border.
Just as, if we had common car regulations, you could import a car from Europe without having to jump through hoops and spend thousands on "upgrades".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.