North American Union to Replace USA? ("is this the plan?" alert!)

HumanEventsOnline.com ^ | 5/19/2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[Dark Skies]

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." 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.

The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.

The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:

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.

Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.

Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?

[Rokke]

"I never said this."

You never said anything about the CFR advocating absorbing Mexico as a US territory?!?! In post #820 (the only post you managed to dedicate to the CFR document) you spent three paragraphs talking about Mexico becoming a US territory. You demanded to know why the CFR document didn't propose what you call a "Constitutional solution" to facilitate turning Mexico into a US territory. In post #868 you say "There is only ONE Constitutional option and that is to allow the Mexican people to VOTE to become a US territory. The CFR does not take the CONSTITUTIONAL option for merging the two countries." Don't pull a Nicmarlo and ask me to explain what you are talking about because I really don't have any idea, but there it is in black and white. If you don't think the CFR document advocates absorbing Mexico as a US territory, why in the world did you bring it up in the ONLY post on this 900 post abortion of a thread where you actually managed to accomplish what you claimed you wanted to do 800 posts ago?

I honestly believe I am dealing with a nutcase here. I can see that I have COMPLETELY wasted my time. I should have known better than assume that someone who is shallow enough to believe a conspiracy theory is deep enough to discuss anything on a level that might indicate he isn't suffering from a 3 day alcoholic binge. I'm outta here. I gave you EVERY opportunity in the world to do what you said you wanted to do in post #143 regarding the CFR document. I will quote you here..."Do you want to go through the document point by point?" It took you until post #820 to begin discussing your problems with the document. You made it through exactly 4 sentences. Nice job. Read my response in post #859 if you want an example of where we could have gone with this. But I don't care to witness the 30,000 more posts it is going to take to cover a 70 page document...so with that, I depart.

Enjoy your fantasies. They suit you well.

[hedgetrimmer]

Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Prosperity Agenda

MEXICO-U.S.A. BINATIONAL COMMISSION: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GREATER CONVERGENCE

Partnership for Prosperity initiative was launched by U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox in September 2001

In February 2001, Fox and Bush jointly endorsed the Guanajuato Proposal, which read, "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." Unfortunately, they never translated that sentiment into policy (with the exception of the symbolic but substantively trivial $40 million Partnership for Prosperity).

Can't Afford to Buy a House in San Diego? Become an Illegal Alien.

Check out the Guanajuato Proposal too.

[hedgetrimmer]

Rokke ask your dad if he buys into the CFR agenda to create a North American Union. We are all very curious. We also would like to know how he got involved in the CFR-- do you have to be invited to join? If so, who was his sponsor? What benefit is it to him to be a member? Is it required as a condition of employment for some organizations? It would be helpful if you can give us an insiders look at this organization.

[hedgetrimmer]

No, I never said that the CFR advocates making Mexico a territory, quite the contrary.

[calcowgirl]

Thanks! I'm trying to put together a list of what I have read and still want to read. That in itself will take more time than I have today. I'm done reading the Canadian Action Party paper--It's so anti-globalism-biased that it loses all credibility even though there are some decent references to follow up on.

From a different source, I found a paper from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). It was written in 2003, but has some great background and mentions all of the same players we are dealing with here. It's 23 pages filled with a lot of good info.

North American Economic Integration Policy Options
Earl H. Fry
Policy Papers on the Americas, Volume XIV, Study 8, July 2003

I already learned something new from the CSIS study:

Before assuming the presidency in December 2000, Vicente Fox voiced support for a European Union of North America, an institutional arrangement that would eventually result in the creation of a common market, the free movement of labor, and a common currency. (p.17)

In the meantime, it looks like Corsi has been busy! LOL His new article has been posted twice at FR:

The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'
Human Events Online ^ | 5-22-06 | Jerome R. Corsi
Posted on 05/22/2006 12:55:39 AM PDT by SUSSA

The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'
RaiderNewsService.com ^ | Jerome R. Corsi
Posted on 05/22/2006 3:42:25 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2

[hedgetrimmer]

FYI the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) developed the concept of 'homeland security' with the Rand Corporation, and was paid by the federal government to create the Department of Homeland Security.

[calcowgirl]

Thanks. The part of the document I read appears rather non-biased. It was recapping the history and various positions of the players (e.g. Pastor and many others). It is also well footnoted so it leads to even more reading material. Waaaaaaaay too much to cover, lol.

Anyway, I am finding it informative from a historical perspective. I also am familiar with the head of the organization from my prior business activities, so I have some bias in judging what they put out (i.e. moderate skepticism).

[Firefish]

I concur. The ultimate plan is to establish three spheres of regional governance, European Union, American Union (both North and South), and finally an Asian Union, which will ultimately will be melded into a One World Government.

[texastoo]

Very interesting. There is no doubt that the elites don't want a vote on this merger of NA and we will never have one.

Report to Leaders
Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America


http://www.spp.gov/report_to_leaders/index.asp?dName=report_to_leaders

Promoting Growth, Competitiveness and Quality of Life

Key Themes and Initiatives

excerpt***
On March 23, 2005, President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin committed our countries to enhancing North American competitiveness and improving the quality of life of our people. On that basis they tasked Ministers and officials, in consultation with stakeholders, to develop workplans that would give effect to that fundamental goal.

This report also gives the names of "ministers". The 3 ministers at the bottom are from Canada.

Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Fernando Canales, Secretario de Economia
Carlos Abascal, Secretario de Gobernacion
Luis Ernesto Derbéz, Secretario de Relacines Exteriores






David L. Emerson, Minister of Industry
Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Pierre Stewart Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign Affair

The word "stakeholder" is used a couple of times in this report.

[evad]

Well, after lurking in and out on this thread for 3 days I'm sorry to see that it never went anywhere. But, not a total waste...I now know about a Google Toolbar.

Off to lurk on a new thread and see what I can learn.

[hedgetrimmer]

Rokke's not here anymore.

so with that, I depart.

[calcowgirl]

Pastor's testimony to congress last month is full of jaw-dropping comments. This is not one-tenth of the testimony.
"...develop a model that would inspire those seeking to reduce the disparities between rich and poor countries." ???


http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/109/pas042606.pdf

Robert A. Pastor
Director, Center for North American Studies,
Vice President of International Affairs, and
Professor of International Relations
American University
Washington, D.C.
April 26, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere

The U.S., Mexico, and North America

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the invitation to testify on the state of U.S.-Mexico relations and the many issues that affect our relationship. While our country focuses on the Middle East, I applaud this Committee’s recognition that there is no country whose stability and progress has more of an impact on the United States than Mexico.

Last month, President George W. Bush met with President Vicente Fox and Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Cancun. The three leaders should be commended for acknowledging the priority of North America, but their agenda was too timid and the results too meager to build on the foundation constructed twelve years ago when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect.

President Bush’s election in 2000 raised expectations that the former Texas Governor would give priority to Mexico and Canada, and this was underscored by his first foreign visit, which was to President Fox’s ranch in Guanajuato. There, Presidents Bush and Fox pledged to consult with their Canadian counterpart and seek a North American economic community. They have made almost no progress toward that goal.

...

The root cause of the strained relations is the imbalance in power and the lack of credible continental institutions, but it is also because the U.S. government has never organized itself to address the difficult domestic-continental trade-offs that define North American relations. If the U.S. does not comply with trade agreements, however, it invites similar behavior by our neighbors – e.g., Mexico’s Congress is considering changing the “national treatment” of foreign investment. The path toward solving these chronic problems is to place bilateral relations with both Mexico and Canada in a new North American framework.

There are three good reasons to build a North American Community – to compete better in world commerce, to secure ourselves from external threats, and to develop a model that would inspire those seeking to reduce the disparities between rich and poor countries.

[evad]

Rokke's not here anymore.... so with that, I depart.

Heh.. have a nice day HT.

[hedgetrimmer]

but it is also because the U.S. government has never organized itself to address the difficult domestic-continental trade-offs that define North American relations.

Because of Constitutional constraints perhaps?

The path toward solving these chronic problems is to place bilateral relations with both Mexico and Canada in a new North American framework.

'Framework' is UN speak for government.

to develop a model that would inspire those seeking to reduce the disparities between rich and poor countries.

Is Pastor a socialist or communist?

Rokke, I am copying you out of courtesy. 1rudeboy, I am not copying you because I know you are already following the thread.

[hedgetrimmer]

This is an older article, see excerpts:

Mexico Cools North American Union talk

Defence is another area where it is suggested a NAFTA strategy could emerge. But this also has problems. Canada is a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and NORAD, with the United States, but Mexico is not. Canada's memberships in NATO and NORAD impose responsibilities and missions that do not exist for Mexico.

So the idea of a North American Union is a distant project, if it comes about at all. However, there will be some surprises. Mexico's ambassador to Canada, Maria Teresa Garcia, told the Public Policy Forum that she looked forward to the day when a young Mexican could say, "I am Mexican, but I hold a North American passport." That may be sooner than she thinks.

The vehicle would be Nexus, a Canada-U.S. experiment that provides identification cards to Canadians and Americans without criminal records for speedy border crossing. Once the system was extended to Mexico it would constitute a de facto North American passport. But there would still be three quite independent countries. The European Union was created to avoid future wars in Europe. There's no such compelling pressure in North America

[calcowgirl]

From page 5 of Pastor's Testimony (I notice the use of the word "state" not "nation"):

It is time to stop debating NAFTA and start addressing the agenda for North America’s second decade. We should begin by articulating a vision of a North American Community where each state recognizes that instability or recession in one affects the others, and each benefit from the others’ success. When the value of a neighbor’s house rises, this has a positive effect on the other homes. Transforming that vision into programs requires leadership, resources, institutions, and a plan.

The paramount challenge for North America is to close the income gap separating Mexico from its northern neighbors. The European Union demonstrated this could be done.

[texastoo]

That is an interesting statement on the three spheres. Do you have any links or information on this?

[texastoo]

Thanks for the article. I started reading it and stopped on the grafts regarding "attitudes". Unbelievable. This is like child's play.

I will read this later though.

[hedgetrimmer]

Discovering North America

Summer Institute, American University

June 1-July 12, 2003

Course Instructors:

Dr. Robert A. Pastor

(202) 885-2728

Director, Center for North American Studies (CNAS)

Vice-President, International Affairs

Professor, School of International Service (SIS)

Dr. David M. Stemper

(202) 885-1525

Associate Director, Center for North American Studies (CNAS)

Purpose of the Course

This seminar seeks to define a common agenda for North America and to develop specific

proposals. Senior officials from the three governments will lecture and attend the final sessions where they will comment on the policy proposals developed by students. The seminar will familiarize the participants with Washington, D.C. – its politics and foreign policy-making process.

 

One goal of the seminar is to instill in a new generation an innovative way of thinking about

themselves and their neighbors--not just as citizens of their countries but also as residents of North America.

 

WEEK VI: New Approaches for Constructing a North American Community

Readings

· Wendy Dobson, “A Canadian Perspective,” Perspectives on Further North American Integration,

The Trilateral Commission North American Regional Meeting, Toronto, November 2002.

· Joe Dukert, “New Initiative in North American Energy Cooperation,” International

Association for Energy Economics Newsletter, April 2003.

· Luis Rubio, “A Mexican Perspective,” Perspectives on Further North American Integration, The

Trilateral Commission North American Regional Meeting, Toronto, November 2002.

· See the CNAS website for summary of an AU spring faculty discussion about, “Alternative

Futures: Imagining a Different North America?” that is relevant to the Week VI

readings. http://www.american.edu/internationalaffairs/cnas/academics/fs_04_16_03.html

 

Lecture 14: Joe Dukert, Independent Energy

Consultant, “A North American Viewpoint about Energy.”

Professor Robert A. Pastor, “Deepening NAFTA or

Widening to the FTAA: Which Comes First?”

Five-Minute Presentation of Five Task Force Reports to

the Honorable James Derham, Deputy Assistant Secretary

of State, Western Hemisphere Affairs, Daniel Abele,

Academic Relations Officer, Embassy of Canada, Carlos

Rico, Minister for Political Affairs, Embassy of Mexico,

and other policymakers and governmental officials.

Discovering North America SIS 501.N55 Course Syllabus, Page 13

Radio (NPR) may produce a program based on these policy discussions.

Reception, Juan José Bremer , Ambassador of Mexico,

Embassy of Mexico, will speak about North American issues.

***Submission of Final Individual Public Policy Memos***

***Final Exam***

[hedgetrimmer]

Faculty Seminar IV
Highlights of Faculty Seminar IV
April 16, 2003

Subject: Alternative Futures: Imagining a Different North America?

The co-chairs were Vice President of International Affairs, Dr. Robert A. Pastor, and Professor Phillip Brenner, Chair, Inter-Disciplinary Council on the Americas (SIS). The two presentations were by Dr. Gary Hufbauer, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow, Institute for International Economics, and Dr. M. Delal Baer, Senior Advisor, Americas Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Pastor summed up the seminars. The first sought to define North America as being more than just three countries - an area increasingly integrated socially and economically, though not politically or policy-wise. The second addressed the nature of the linkages that connect as well as the profound divergence in development between Mexico and its northern neighbors. The third focused on the most acute dilemma -how to continue to integrate the region in the wake of heightened concerns about terror and communicable diseases. The issue for the final seminar is: where do we go from here with "North America"? How can we rethink our relationships?

According to Hufbauer, the opposition of Canada and Mexico to the Iraq war made short-term integration difficult in the economic and security areas. No bold initiatives about integration will come from Canada and the US before 2004, due partly to elections. Chances for integration will depend in part on the evolution of perceptions of security in Canada and Mexico and whether "smart border" arrangements can permit better risk-management. Opportunities for integration also exist in energy, perhaps for a plan dealing with an Artic oil/gas pipeline and alternatives such as hydrogen, fusion, solar and nuclear. Some disputes may also be resolved on trucking, wheat, and lumber. Some institutional integration may be possible, and he offered several ideas: (1) a trilateral trade dispute commission to harmonize rules for antidumping and countervailing duties; (2) Canada as nonvoting observer in US ITC and vice-versa; and (3) cooperative supervision of banks and financial markets.

Baer was also pessimistic in the short-term about trilateralism. She thought that "North America" will only become a field of study many years from now. The fall-out of differences on Iraq make "trilateralism" an unlikely path, and some senior U.S. policymakers associate the term 'North America' with transfer payments and U.S. "giveaways." Mexican hostility towards NAFTA has increased, and is most evident in the move to try to renegotiate agricultural provisions. Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda's resignation slowed down integration. The issue of security offered the best way to gain support for greater economic integration. Although Mexicans may be against a "NORAD" model of security cooperation, security integration along the borders was moving forward due to expanded US investment and the presence of Mexican troops. For Baer, change has to be incremental, policymakers flowing with the "current," widening free trade agreements to the hemisphere before deepening NAFTA.

Brenner characterized the seminars as having highlighted tensions between various analytical models for understanding integration. The seminars caused those skeptical of their utility to change somewhat and think about "big" ideas and the "bigger" picture. For him, the 50th anniversary of Puerto Rico's commonwealth "status"suggests an analogy: does integration offer Mexico a future like Puerto Rico's? Integration proponents need to deal with several issues: NORAD and security, immigration, energy dispute resolution, U.S. "hegemony," and U.S. domestic politics not being ready for more integration. Brenner's second point referred to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which created a new paradigm that broke down cartels and permitted greater efficiency. Similarly, North America could chart a new path for regional integration.

Group discussion dealt with governance, stakeholders, watersheds (Colorado, Río Bravo, Usumacinta) as a new model to think about a continent, Canadian bulk water sales (NAFTA rules and the economics of water pricing), and the International Joint Commission (its transboundary successes and failures, e.g., biodiversity).

Clarkson questioned the seminar's assumptions - that integration was "good" and the actions of the three nation states acting individually were "bad." For him, Pastor's notion of "integration" was "one size fits all," overlooking Canadians' worry about issues of social justice and the environment. Pastor responded that the three countries of North America have the opportunity to forge a unique experiment between a developing and two industrialized countries: that that aimed to narrow the development gap while fostering regional, sectoral policies for shared problems and opportunities.

For Hufbauer, NAFTA's labor and environmental chapters were feeble. Mexico's delinquency problems, high interest rates, difficulties with home mortgages create monetary instability that are challenges to be addressed by an integration based on possible dollarization (de facto, de jure, or the AMERO). A Mexican political scientist from CIDE said that NAFTA was pushed by Mexican elites, not by others, and current attitudes makes energy reforms difficult.

Final discussions focused on the pace of integration and implementation of a compelling vision of "North America" (e.g., "visionary pragmatists" building North America, one-sector-at-a-time, in electronics and autos, eliminating rules of origin), and Mexico's many FTAs with small countries complicating an eventual customs union with Canada and the U.S. Also mentioned were future AU courses about North American water, politics, governance and institutions, business, law, social movements, trade and the environment, and economics.

http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/academics/summary4.html