                 
 
|
Dana's Blog
|
|
Privatization of Mexican Oil Will Advance SPP Objectives By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has proposed sweeping reforms to its state-owned oil company Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX). He denies that his reforms constitute privatization and claims they will serve to make PEMEX stronger. Many view his proposals as a threat to Mexican sovereignty and nothing more then an energy grab. It is through NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) that the U.S. is further securing access and control to Canadian and Mexican resources. Former presidential candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who lost to Calderon, is spearheading a movement to stop oil privatization and pushing for a referendum. Opponents of the reforms were able to force the Mexican Congress to hold a series of debates which ended on July 22. There is a swell of national sentiment spreading across the country as the majority of Mexicans wish to retain control of one of their last symbols of sovereignty.
|
| |
Mexico’s oil industry was nationalized in 1938, and its constitution forbids foreign investment in the oil sector, including private corporate ownership. Calderon insists that his reforms are necessary for the very survival of the country. He describes PEMEX as broken and bankrupt, and believes that the only way to further develop any deepwater drilling is by opening it up to foreign investment. The reforms will allow for key components of PEMEX to be taken over by private companies. Opponents of the plan have called it backdoor privatization and fear it will lead to the complete takeover of the industry. If passed, the reforms will allow private companies to build refineries, transport oil, and own pipeline networks. It will open 37 of PEMEX’s 41divisions to private subcontractors. It has been reported that Halliburton already has a contract with PEMEX to drill for new wells and maintain pipelines. The move to privatize Mexican oil runs contrary to a worldwide trend to further nationalize oil reserves
|
| |
There is little doubt that there are many problems associated with PEMEX, but there should be the necessary funds in place to make upgrades and pay for future development. There have been allegations of corruption, including massive money deviations and other improprieties. Some of its profits also went to pay down Mexico’s foreign debt. The point is that there has been very little in the way of accountability of money allocations. PEMEX also turns over 60% of its revenue to the government in the form of taxes. Some of this money is used for social programs and public work projects. It has been suggested that, by lifting the tax burden imposed on PEMEX, it would be able to reinvest in its own development. What is at stake is Mexico’s future as a sovereign nation. There are fears that the privatization of PEMEX will only lead to more social unrest and plunge Mexico into even deeper poverty. What are needed are reforms that truly strengthen PEMEX and guarantee its oil supply for Mexican demand. This runs contrary to the SPP and a North American resource pact which ultimately favors the United States.
|
| |
The SPP is designed to consolidate U.S. control over North American energy supplies by expanding oil production in Canada and Mexico. This includes gaining more access by further deregulating energy markets. Under NAFTA, Mexico refused to privatize its state-owned oil industry. The SPP is being used to bypass the Mexican constitution, and privatization of North American energy resources is at the very core of its agenda. Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians said that the North American Competitiveness Council is, “providing input into the SPP through the North American Energy Working Group, and their intentions are clear. In the case of energy, what they want is a fast-tracked continental integration policy.” Laura Carlsen, the director of the Americas Program at the U.S.-based Center for International Policy, has stated that Calderon’s reforms will help in achieving some SPP objectives. She said, “The first is to increase U.S. energy security by guaranteeing access to extensive deepwater reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, including Mexico’s portion of it.” She went on to say that, “The second objective is to open up oil and gas production and market to foreign companies.” The SPP is paving the way for a North American Union.
|
| |
Since Calderon came to power, he has aggressively promoted NAFTA, free trade, the SPP, and the further privatization of Mexican institutions. All represent steps toward a North American Union. Last year, former Mexican President Vincente Fox, made some amazing revelations on the Larry King and Daily Show. He discussed how he had been working with President Bush towards the creation of a single currency for North America. He also argued in favor of a North American Union, using the EU as its model. For all the talk of a North American Union being a conspiracy theory, it was an incredible admission by a most senior former government official. This was not a slip of the tongue, and was meant to test the waters and further condition the population for continental integration.
|
| |
In Mexico, a movement is gaining momentum, fueled by anti-NAFTA sentiments and plans to privatize its oil industry. NAFTA has been a disaster for the average Mexican and has increased U.S. and Mexican income disparities and further widened the gap between rich and poor. Mexico represents the third world component of NAFTA, and this could spread to the U.S. and Canada. Some Mexican legislators have been working in conjunction with their NAFTA counterparts to try and stop the SPP. It appears as if a North American Union will be a hard sell in Mexico as much of the population has woken up to the evils of globalization, and are prepared to take action to stop it.
|
|
NAFTA and SPP, Securing U.S. Access to Canadian Resources By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) objectives include further removing barriers and securing access and control to Canadian resources. NAFTA has already seemingly granted the U.S. unlimited access to Canadian energy. The SPP will bring about the further deregulation and privatization of Canadian institutions. There are also fears that under the SPP, Canada will become nothing more then a resource colony. If this agenda is not stopped and a North American Union is allowed to manifest, it will bring about the complete raping of Canadian resources and a once proud and vibrant sovereign nation will cease to exist.
|
| |
To the global elite pushing for deeper integration, Canadian resources are viewed as North American resources. Multinational corporations are the ones who will benefit from a North American resource pact. We are witnessing the further takeover of Canada, as their own government is in collusion with powerful private corporate interests. It is through NAFTA and the SPP that a North American energy strategy is being implemented, one that favors the United States. Canada needs an independent energy strategy that puts its future needs ahead of the U.S. and multinational corporations.
|
| |
As it stands, Canada's energy strategy is to essentially cater to U.S. demands while it is left importing fuel needed for its eastern provinces. Canada is the largest supplier of crude oil and natural gas to the United States. Canadian oil production is expected to reach the one-billion mark this year. There is talk of tripling its oil sands production by 2015. The Council of Canadians states that, “NAFTA prevents us from selling our energy resources at rates lower than we sell them in the U.S. We also can’t ever cut back on the proportion of energy we produce and sell to the United States, even in times when our country runs short.” The aim is to further expand oil and gas production in Canada. Through the SPP framework, the North American Competitiveness Council is further pushing Alberta tar sands development. Canadians need to be aware of plans to further integrate and hand over more control of its resources to the Americans and this also includes water.
|
| |
The U.S. has long since coveted Canadian fresh water as it possesses one-fifth of the world’s supply. Maude Barlow, the National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, said in a recent article, “water supplies, like energy supplies, must be secured if the United States is to maintain its current economic and military power in the world. And the United States is exerting pressure to access Canadian water, despite Canada's own shortages.” Canada desperately needs a national water policy that would ban bulk water exports and protect its own future needs.
|
| |
The SPP is a threat to Canadian water exports, not to mention the environmental problems it would create. Under NAFTA, bulk water is recognized as a “good” and therefore according to the agreement, it should be allowed to move freely across borders without government intervention. In Manitoba, there have been discussions of piping water that flows into the Hudson Bay and selling it to the Americans. The NDP provincial government has passed legislation prohibiting water exports. In order to truly protect Canadian water and other resources, NAFTA must be renegotiated, or better yet, repealed.
|
| |
The SPP is continuing economic integration where NAFTA left off. Security, military, judicial, and political integration into a North American Union is also taking place incrementally. Some believe that a North American Union will bring security and prosperity to the region, but it is really a system of control. It is designed to breakdown national sovereignty, further consolidate wealth, and suck dry the resources of Canada and Mexico. The corporate agenda to privatize Mexican energy is encountering fierce resistance. Continental integration is being fueled by globalization, and a North American Union is another step towards world government and the total enslavement of the population.
|
|
Bill C-51, Codex and the SPP By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
On April 8, 2008, Canada’s Health Minister introduced Bill C-51 which proposed sweeping changes to the Food and Drugs Act. The Canadian government has since been forced to make amendments because of intense grassroots pressure. There are fears that this Bill could lead to some vitamins, herbs, minerals, and dietary supplements no longer being available in the country. Through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are already busy harmonizing food and drug regulations into a North American Union structure. Some have suggested that this Bill would also bring Canadian law into compliance with the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Bill C-51 has the potential to take away the rights of people to freely choose natural medicine as an alternative to expensive drug-based products and treatments.
|
| |
Bill C-51 will further encroach on civil liberties and increase police state measures. There is reason for concern because of the Bills ambiguous language in regards to raids and seizures. It has been referred to as a police state bill masquerading as a health bill. It will make it easier for Canadian officials to seize natural health products and remove them from store shelves. It grants inspectors the power to raid homes and businesses without a warrant and the power to seize bank accounts and property. Some might recall that in the early 90’s, the FDA engaged in paramilitary raids on American health food stores, holistic treatment centers, and other nutritional supplement businesses. This behavior created such a public outcry and backlash, leading Congress to pass the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to protect the right of American consumers to purchase and use nutritional supplements.
|
| |
If the Harper Conservative government thought that they were going to quietly pass Bill C-51, were they ever wrong. When word hit the Internet and blogoshere that up to 60% of natural health products currently sold in Canada could be outlawed, it sparked a swift and strong public reaction. In Bill C-51, the word drug has been replaced with “therapeutic products” and gives the government broad reaching powers to further regulate their sale. Health Minister Tony Clement has vowed to change the parts that lumped natural medicines in with pharmaceutical drugs. This includes a clearer definition of natural health products into the Food and Drugs Act. There has been other amendments made, but there are still many concerns surrounding Bill C-51. It might be safer to do away with it in its entirety and start from scratch.
|
| |
It is the SPP working groups that are harmonizing regulations and laws, writing out policy initiatives and recommendations. They are the real power, laying the foundation for a North American Union. Part of the SPP calls for the “Identification and appropriate adoption of best practices in maintaining the safety, efficacy and quality of pharmaceutical products.” NDP MP Peter Julian said in the House of Commons that, “Bill C-51 would limit access to many health products and allow the fast-tracking of new drugs that have not been proven safe. Bill C-51 blends in with the SPP agenda, which is about harmonizing regulations across the board with the United States, resulting in lower standards.” There are fears that Bill C-51 will bring about a more U.S. style approach to food, drugs, and consumer product safety. This includes turning more power over to the drug companies with increased reliance on their testing and research. These same drug manufacturers would themselves be more responsible in fast-tracking the drug approval process and further looking after any safety concerns once the drug has hit the market. Under the Trilateral Cooperation Charter, the FDA is also working with Canada and Mexico in further harmonizing regulations between the three countries.
|
| |
It is not just through the SPP and the Trilateral Cooperation Charter that the harmonizing of food and drugs is being achieved. The Codex Alimentarius Commission which is part of the United Nations is setting international guidelines for food products including dietary supplements. They are using muscle provided by the World Trade Organization to undermine and bypass domestic laws. Section Six of CAFTA talks about using the Codex codes as the regulatory standard for all signing nations. It is through the Codex guidelines that vitamins, minerals, and other natural supplements could become limited and even banned. Some fear that Bill C-51 is an attempt to place Canada under Codex control.
|
| |
Many argue that Bill C-51 is unnecessary, and that there are already laws in place to protect consumers from natural health products. It’s not about keeping Canadians safe, it’s about further harmonizing our health and safety regulations into a North American Union. How can fast-tracking potentially dangerous new drugs and at the same time outlawing some beneficial natural medicines be good for anyone? One must understand that it is also about ensuring huge profits for Big Pharma. Bill C-51 should be rejected on the grounds that it threatens the ability of Canadians to choose alternative health products and treatments.
|
|
President Obama Won’t Change NAFTA By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Barack Obama has all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination, with only the formalities of the convention remaining. There is a good chance that he will become the next president of the United States. For all his talk of change, it appears that in areas of trade, economics, foreign and monetary policy, things for the most part will remain status quo. During the grueling nomination battle, both the Obama and Clinton camps were highly critical of NAFTA and accused the other of changing their position on the trade agreement. What is really worrisome is that you don’t hear Obama, or McCain for that matter, talking about preserving the constitution or protecting American sovereignty. The reality is that NAFTA will remain intact, and the push towards a North American Union and global governance will continue.
|
| |
Obama has promised that one of his first orders of business as president will be to call upon the leaders of Canada and Mexico to renegotiate stronger labor and environmental provisions into NAFTA. Both he and Clinton were specific about using the six-month opt-out clause in order to put pressure for changes to be made. It appears as if Obama has backed himself into a corner. With all this talk about renegotiating NAFTA, the U.S. ambassador to Canada , David Wilkins, has said that NAFTA is too important to do away with or make any drastic changes to. He pointed to the fact that regardless who wins the American presidential election, NAFTA will stand.
|
| |
With the sharp tone of language directed towards NAFTA, some Canadian government officials became concerned. It was reported that the Obama campaign contacted Canadian officials to set the record straight and told them not to take the criticism seriously. They also received warnings that Obama would be further speaking out against the agreement. Does this mean that all this tough talk regarding NAFTA was nothing more than political positioning and rhetoric? It’s not just Obama as Clinton tried to court working-class voters in the industrial Midwest, where NAFTA has hit the hardest by also telling the people what they wanted to hear.
|
| |
For years, both the Democrats and Republicans have been double teaming the American people. One gets in power and further advances the New World Order agenda, and then falls out of favor and passes the baton to the other. In Canada , it was the Liberal party who spearheaded the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) initiative, and with the Conservatives now in power, deeper integration has continued. It will be the same with the Democrats, who will further push for a North American Union, and this will not include dismantling NAFTA. Just like the Republicans, the Democrats are run by special interest groups and corporate powers that are pushing globalization and world government. With Obama in office, I am afraid that many on the left will go to sleep because their man and party will be in power. He doesn’t have the political baggage of a McCain or Clinton, and this makes him an even more useful tool of the elite.
|
| |
In a recent article from washingtonpost.com, there are suggestions on what Obama should do as president. It included using the European Union as an example for economic and political integration. It talked about, “A functioning American Union that pools sovereignty.” It went on to say that this would not be possible by tearing down NAFTA. Much of the economic integration has already been achieved through NAFTA, and the SPP is continuing this process, further laying the foundation for a North American Union.
|
| |
It is doubtful that the Democrats and President Obama will follow through on promises to fix NAFTA. It is so badly flawed, and a trade agreement that puts the interests of the people ahead of those of multinational corporations is what is needed. With all his talk on NAFTA, Obama has been silent on the SPP and the North American Union agenda. If there are no intentions of abandoning NAFTA, then it appears as if Obama’s change will be more of what we’ve come to expect from our politicians. With the next phase of the presidential campaign underway, I hope that this is not the last we’ve seen of NAFTA as an election issue.
|
|
The SPP and Merging Military Command Structures By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Portions of the Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) signed by the U.S.-Canadian military in mid-February were just recently posted on the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and Canada Command websites. The plan would allow for military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency, including one that does not involve a cross-border crisis. Some fear that this agreement could lead to foreign troops being used for gun confiscation and marital law. CAP, along with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), are further advancing the merging of U.S.-Canadian military command structures and represent steps towards a North American Union.
|
| |
In 2002, then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced the creation of NORTHCOM, and boasted that it would have jurisdiction over all of North America. In an article by Michel Chossudovsky, he states the, “redesign of Canada’s defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).” He went on to say, “Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated.” In addition, this is taking place through the SPP and poses a serious threat to Canadian sovereignty and any resemblance of an independent foreign policy.
|
| |
Canada Command and NORTHCOM have established close bilateral ties, meeting regularly and planning as well as participating in joint military exercises. American, Canadian, and even Mexican troops have held military training exercises in advent of a possible natural disaster or terrorist attack during the 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver. It is unclear whether American troops will be providing any type of security at the Olympics. On top of merging command structures, binational integration is also taking place in areas of intelligence and law enforcement.
|
| |
In advance of the SPP Leader Summit in Montebello, Quebec back in 2007, it was reported that the RCMP, along with the U.S. Army, blocked the Council of Canadians from renting a municipal community center to hold a forum in. The reason cited was that it was located inside the reported 25 km security perimeter. There is little doubt that the SPP is also further advancing the police state.
|
| |
The majority of Canadians reject the SPP, and deeper integration with the United States. It is not surprising that the Harper Conservative government and the Canadian military failed to announce the signing of CAP. This agreement was not signed by the governments of both countries, but by military commanding officers with no public debate or Parliamentary and Congressional oversight. There was no Canadian Forces press release, and the government refused to answer questions on the agreement in the House of Commons. It is hard to imagine that an agreement of such magnitude, which would allow U.S.-Canadian troops on each other’s soil and threaten the sovereignty of each nation was not debated or voted on. Just like the SPP, CAP is shrouded in secrecy, with many missing annexes that remain classified. This agreement goes hand in hand with parts of the North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza, which was announced at the SPP Summit in Montebello.
|
| |
Canadian military command structures are further merging with the U.S., and it is becoming more aggressive in its operations. The Canadian government’s tone and language directed towards other nations is becoming more hostile. There has been a shift from its more traditional role as a peacekeeping nation, which has garnered praise and respect from around the world. Canada might play a more active role in the war on terror, including posible participation in future U.S. military operations. The SPP is further advancing Canadian security and military assimilation into the U.S. and a North American Union.
|
|
Plan Mexico Tied to SPP By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
The Merida Initiative is a security aid package to Mexico and parts of Central America that was recently approved. It has been dubbed Plan Mexico and is a three year $1.4 billion “Regional Security Cooperation Initiative.” Some have described it as more of a partnership as oppose to a foreign aid package. Plan Mexico is tied to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the continued integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a North American Union.
|
| |
Much of Plan Mexico is based on the American war on drugs model, which has been costly and ineffective. This model relies primarily on military and law enforcement measures, leading to more surveillance, domestic spying, and further advancing the police state. Plan Mexico will see the transfer of equipment, technological support, and training in an effort to combat Mexico’s growing drug trade. Some believe that this military approach will further escalate drug related violence and human rights's abuses. There is a push for more military cooperation and the future development of a hemispheric police force that would be able to cross borders. This might not be necessary with creation of a North American Union, as our borders are being systematically erased and our sovereignty sacrificed.
|
| |
Plan Mexico goes well beyond trying to stop the flow of illegal drugs. At a press conference from the third SPP Leader Summit in Montebello, Quebec in August of 2007, President Bush referred to Mexico’s drug trade as a continental problem that demanded continental solutions. Laura Carlsen, the director of the Americas Program at the U.S.-based Center for International Policy, stated that Plan Mexico is intimately linked to the SPP. She said, “It would fundamentally restructure the U.S.-Mexico binational relationship, recast economic and social problems as security issues, and militarize Mexican society. “ She went on to say, “Through the SPP, the Bush administration has sought to push its North American trade partners into a common front that would assume shared responsibility for protecting the United States from terrorist threats, promoting and protecting the free-trade economic model, and bolstering U.S. global control.”
|
| |
As much as half of Plan Mexico funding will go to the military, with later money allocated to law enforcement and judicial agencies. Drug cartels have managed to infiltrate the judicial system and almost every facet of Mexican law enforcement and military. There has been an undeclared border war for some time, with Mexican drug gangs and cartels vying for control. It has been reported by the mainstream media that some Mexican troops who received U.S. training have now switched sides and joined the cartels. There have also been reports of Mexican rogue military incursions across the border. The national media blackout surrounding the border violence has been lifted, as there are fears the violence could further spillover across on to the U.S. side.
|
| |
Some might recall Plan Colombia, which was launched by the Clinton administration back in 2000. Since its inception, it has failed to reduce the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. and has lead to more violence and corruption. New equipment, training, and strategy was later shifted from targeting drug cartels and used against those who oppose the government. Plan Columbia later morphed into the war on terror. There were up to 800 American trainers, including Special Forces, and up to 600 private contractors in Columbia. There are fears that Plan Mexico will result in more U.S. military involvement. The Merida Initiative threatens Mexican sovereignty, will broaden presidential powers, and promote militarization of the country.
|
| |
The Plan Mexico strategy is part of the SPP and further integration into a North American Union. It will help in creating a fortress North America while spreading the SPP to other parts of the region. This is in an effort for the U.S. to further extend its foreign policy. There has been much speculation about possible American troop involvement, which both U.S. and Mexican authorities have adamantly denied. The U.S. is further merging its military and law enforcement with Canada and Mexico. Are we on the verge of a North American Union army? There are still many unanswered questions surrounding the U.S.-Canadian military agreement that was signed several months back.
|
|
Oklahoma Recalls Bill That Would Have Facilitated NAFTA Superhighway By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
The Oklahoma State Senate voted to recall a bill that would have further facilitated plans for the NAFTA Superhighway to run through the state. There were fears that parts of Bill 1507, which dealt with Foreign Trade Zones, were tied to the superhighway which is to extend from Mexico to Canada. There were also concerns that this would lead to private property seizures through eminent domain. This is already taking place in parts of rural Texas with the construction of the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC), which is to be the first leg of this superhighway infrastructure.
|
| |
Some have argued that Bill 1507 would have allowed for the creation of foreign owned smart ports. This would have allowed for imported goods to pass through the U.S./Mexican border without going through customs until Oklahoma. This follows in the same line as other proposed inland ports, such as the one in Kansas City. The NAFTA Superhighway will be a borderless open transportation system that will further facilitate the flow of cheap goods from China. Oklahoma has already passed legislation to stop the TTC from coming through the state.
|
| |
The NAFTA Superhighway is the necessary infrastructure needed for the creation of a North American Union. It will serve as a highway for cheap Chinese goods and cheap labor from Mexico and Latin America. It will untimely benefit multinational corporations, who view borders as barriers to trade and greater profits. Last year, Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., introduced a House resolution that stated congressional opposition to the construction of a superhighway or entry into North American Union.
|
| |
The link from the Mexican border to Oklahoma is to be the highest priority, and has been branded the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC). If completed, it would encompass more than 4,000 miles. It is being financed by the Spanish company Cintra, who will lease and operate it as a toll road. It is set to have 1,200-foot corridors with separate lanes for passenger vehicles and large trucks, and room for future upgrades. Opposition to the TTC is growing, and for the second straight year, ranchers and other opponents marched on the Texas state capital in protest. Some might recall that in a blatant effort to try and stifle opposition, a company with close ties to Cintra purchased many local newspapers from towns that fall in the TTC's path. The TTC is part of the NAFTA Superhighway, and is proof of further integration into a North American Union.
|
| |
In January of this year, Texas Congressman and Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul filed a bill in the House of Representatives to prevent the TTC from receiving federal dollars. He was also very concerned and wanted to prevent the loss of private land through eminent domain. The TTC will see upwards of 584,000 acres of prime farm and ranch land lost, with up to a million people displaced through this practice.
|
| |
The recalling of this bill by the Oklahoma State Senate is another small and maybe even temporary victory in the struggle to stop the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that citizens concerns in regards to this issue are being echoed by more and more legislators. Many states have already passed anti-North American Union and anti-NAFTA Superhighway resolutions. The NAFTA Superhighway is a threat to private property, our sovereignty, and security.
|
|
Big Business, BIG Winner at SPP Summit By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
The besieged Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America received a renewed commitment from all three NAFTA leaders at the recent summit in New Orleans. This is a much needed boast for the North American Union agenda that is seen as widely unpopular. There is little doubt that big business is a driving force behind deeper continental integration. The latest SPP Summit reaffirmed that corporate interests will continue to further dominate this process. The corporate agenda is shaping policy, and as their profits increase, they gain more control over our lives.
|
| |
The SPP is the brainchild of business and political elites who wish to advance North American integration. In June of 2006, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was launched, and is the only formal advisory board in the SPP. The NACC represents private corporate interests, and through the SPP, transnational corporate rights are being further empowered. In February of 2007, the NACC made 51 proposals to SPP negotiators. They are essentially formulating policy and using the SPP to lay the foundation for a North American Union. The NACC is now actively promoting energy privatization in Mexico. It is the multinational corporations who have the most to gain from the SPP.
|
| |
Bruce Campbell, the executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, lays out just how the SPP structure operates. He said, “Business conveys its demand, the politicians respond, consensus is reached, and civil servants implement. This takes the privatization of public policy-making to a new level.” Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians said, “These corporate recommendations are going directly to the respective bureaucracies, and they are being pushed heavily.”
|
| |
Before the Leader Summit, the NACC released a report where they stated, “Our most critical request to the leaders is for them to ensure that the SPP remains a dynamic and effective path forward for trilateral and bilateral co-operation.” There was some fear that this agenda might be further stalled or replaced with something else. Not to worry, because here is what Bush had to say about the NACC’s recommendations, “I’m looking forward to hearing them, and I’m looking forward to implementing them.” Mexican President Calderon also said, “we need to work within the North American Competitiveness Council, where the three leaders agreed we fully need to support the work of this Competitiveness Council.” It sounds like the SPP is back on track, and the NACC and corporate interests will have even more clout.
|
| |
Recent national polls reflect that the majority of Canadians and Americans wish to retain their sovereignty and reject the secrecy surrounding the SPP. I guess most people think it is a big deal when powerful and influential corporate elites and politicians meet in private, plotting the destruction of the country. Dismantling of the borders will allow for the freer flow of goods and cheap labor, which will increase corporate profits at the expense of our sovereignty and prosperity.
|
| |
The big loser of the SPP summit is transparency in government and the will of the people. The transfer of power from our elected representatives to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats is being further accelerated. We must continue to resist the North American Union and the complete corporate takeover of the continent.
|
|
Colombia FTA Based on Failed NAFTA Model By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
The Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was signed in November of 2006, and if ratified, would expand NAFTA to the region. In fact, it would be the largest Western Hemisphere pact since NAFTA. Past free trade deals have failed to live up to the promise of prosperity, and have served to further benefit multinational corporations. This one appears to be no different.
|
| |
The Colombia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was signed in November of 2006, and if ratified, would expand NAFTA to the region. In fact, it would be the largest Western Hemisphere pact since NAFTA. Past free trade deals have failed to live up to the promise of prosperity, and have served to further benefit multinational corporations. This one appears to be no different.
In an effort to pass the Colombia FTA, President Bush used the national security card much like he did with CAFTA. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flexed a little muscle, passing a motion to exempt the accord from the 90-day legislative deadline. This had many opponents of the agreement prematurely celebrating, and news headlines stating it was dead. In reality, all the vote did was delay matters for the time being. The Democrats are on record as saying that they don’t want to kill the accord, and only wish to postpone and use it as leverage. This delay could affect the approval of pending trade agreements with South Korea and Panama.
|
| |
There have been some question marks surrounding Pelosi’s leadership, and there are accusations that her latest move amounts to nothing more than playing politics. As it stands right now, the accord would have little chance of passing. Some have suggested that in actuality, her actions might insure its future passage. She might succeed in getting a few concessions, and proclaim that the Democrats along with U.S. and Colombian workers have won some major victory. What shouldn’t be overlooked in this power move is the constitutional authority that Congress still has over branches of the federal government, but all too often fails to exercise.
|
| |
The Colombia FTA threatens U.S. sovereignty, and would allow foreign corporations to challenge food safety regulations and environmental protections as barriers to trade. It further promotes privatization and deregulation of key public services. There has been a push for Latin American governments to sell national water resources to private corporations. This trade agreement also provides these corporations with another source of cheap labor and threatens American workers by placing them in competition with Colombia ’s lower wages. This will lead to further depressed wages and the loss of more jobs. Despite assurances to the contrary, it undermines labor and environmental standards.
|
| |
The Colombian government has one of the worst human rights violations records in the region, and has come under fire for its links to paramilitary death squads. It is one of the most dangerous places for trade unionists, as many have been killed. Promoting human rights should be a priority, and corrupt and scandalous regimes should not be rewarded unless there are dramatic changes. Many of President Alvaro Uribe’s closest political associates and members of his family have been sent to prison or are under investigation for ties to paramilitary death squads and drug traffickers. This is a government that does not value human rights, freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. This accord would give the Colombian government international approval and recognition, and it sends the wrong message.
|
| |
The Colombia FTA is part of the destructive cycle of other trade deals that have sacrificed more then they have gained. It would allow for the further domination of U.S. trade policies by multinational corporations, and the surrender of more sovereignty. It is another move for more central economic and political governance. This is also taking place with the continued integration of Canada , the U.S. , and Mexico into a North American Union. The Colombia FTA is essentially taking the Security and Prosperity Partnership structure to Latin America , and will be used as a stepping stone to the FTAA and the creation of a Pan-American Union.
|
|
Saving and Expanding the SPP By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Those pushing for a North American Union fully realize that the time might have come to pull the plug on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and replace it with something else. It’s hardly surprising that pro-SPP reports are being released ahead of the Leader Summit in New Orleans. This agenda is on the defensive and the timing of the reports is in an effort to shift public opinion and save the SPP.
|
| |
The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, recently published the report Saving the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership: The Case for a North American Regulatory Area. Not only do they want to save the SPP, but they wish to expand and speed up the process of deeper integration. This could include replacing the SPP with the North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA). As if changing the name would alter its objectives and excuse the treasonous surrender of our sovereignty.
|
| |
Political Scientist and co-author of the report, Alexander Moen, acknowledges that NASRA would include further economic integration beyond free trade, but tries to ease concerns that it would not lead to political integration. The SPP is already merging our health, food safety, energy, and environmental regulations into a North American structure. If the SPP was the next step to NAFTA, why wouldn’t the next logical move be to expand from economic and security to include political integration using the European Union as the model?
|
| |
Proponents of the SPP believe that it is misunderstood, and Moens said, “This confusion around what the SPP stands for has skewed public perception. Governments need to redefine the process and articulate specific goals for partnership.” He went on to say, “Somehow a combination of left-wing economic nationalists in Canada and right-wing protectionists in the US have turned the SPP into a supranationalist conspiracy theory.” The level of desperation to save the SPP has many still clinging to the North American Union as being a fabricated conspiracy. This is a blatant attempt to mislead and deceive the public.
|
| |
The report also calls upon further expanding the role of business inside the SPP process. Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians said, “These recommendations, put into government practice, would intensify the privatization of public policy envisioned in the SPP.” This would mean putting more power into the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. First of all, a mandate from the people is required in order to proceed any further, and there should more public involvement and governmental accountability. All those involved need to be honest and open about the true intentions of the SPP.
|
| |
The SPP has been a public relation’s nightmare and is unraveling. It may have outlived its usefulness under its current structure. Still, many wish to save, expand, and continue to use it as a vehicle to further advance a North American Union.
|
|
Majority of Canadians Reject SPP and Deeper Integration By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
On the heels of the Leader Summit in New Orleans, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) received some bad news as the North American Union agenda appears to be on the ropes especially in Canada. A poll commissioned by the Council of Canadians reveals that the majority of the country wants the Conservative minority government to protect water, energy and public regulations and back off integration with the United States.
|
| |
In the poll, a whopping 86 percent of Canadians agree that the SPP should be debated in the House of Commons and submitted to a parliamentary vote. Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians, said of the SPP, “while corporations have been given a seat at the negotiating table, the Canadian government has never asked the public, how they feel about it.” The SPP’s fate should be decided by the people in the form of a referendum.
|
| |
Another part of the poll showed that 87 percent agree that Canada should set its own independent environmental, health, and safety standards, while 89 percent want an energy policy guaranteeing Canadian supply and protecting the environment. In addition, 88 percent of Canadians want a comprehensive national water policy that bans bulk exports of fresh water and recognizes water as a basic human right.
|
| |
The SPP’s objectives include removing barriers and securing U.S. access to Canadian natural resources. One half of Alberta’s oil sands production is already U.S. owned. The SPP will lead to the further corporate takeover of Canada’s resources. The U.S. government, along with trinational elites in the private sector, will benefit from a North American resource pact.
|
| |
In April of last year, the North American Future 2025 Project met and discussed transfers, consumption, and artificial diversion of bulk waters. Leaked documents obtained by the Council of Canadians prove that the Canadian government along with some business elites are actively discussing and pursuing bulk water exports. Connie Fogal, the leader of the Canadian Action Party, has said that the SPP will begin, “the accelerated extraction and delivery of Canadian oil and water resources to the U.S. economy.”
|
| |
It is no secret that the U.S. has long since coveted Canada’s fresh water, and once this process starts, it would be next to impossible to turn off the tap. What Canada desperately needs is a national water policy that would ban bulk water exports. Canadians need to be aware of the SPP’s plan to integrate and hand over more control and access of their natural resources to the Americans. A sovereign independent Canada must put their future needs ahead of U.S. corporate interests.
|
|
Repackaging, Renaming, Relaunching the SPP By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
With the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America Leader Summit in New Orleans fast approaching, there are calls to rename and relaunch this whole process. This could be in an effort to try and kickstart the SPP as it is encountering fierce resistance. Beware because any new incarnation could be seen as a victory when in reality nothing would have changed except for the name.
|
| |
There is little doubt that the SPP is in need of a drastic makeover in order to give it a new lease on life. The U.S. think tank Hudson Institute has stated, “it may ultimately be necessary to redesign and relaunch a new process to take up the work of the SPP under a new acronym.” This follows a recent report by the Fraser Institute which called for expanding and fast tracking the SPP. Co-author of the report, Alexander Moens, said of the SPP, “the time has come to rebrand the talks and give them a clear mandate.” The report also called for changing the SPP’s name to the North American Standards and Regulations Area (NASRA).
|
| |
Could there also be a push to squeeze Mexico out of the SPP? The Canadian think tank C.D. Howe has recommended a new bilateral trade initiative between the U.S. and Canada. Former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Derek Burney also seemed to echo the same sentiments when he said, “Attempts to ‘triangulate’ in recent years, by bringing in Mexico, have little substance and allowed attention to be diverted from more pressing bilateral concerns.”
|
| |
It is unclear if this would mean the end of the SPP as we now know it. This could also be a huge distraction to confuse and shift the debate. The reality is that through NAFTA and the SPP, much integration has already been achieved. The SPP might be doomed, but the push for a North American Union is not dead and obviously Mexico remains an important part of this agenda.
|
| |
Interest in the SPP on the part of all participants appears to have declined, but incremental integration into a North American Union continues. In many ways, their agenda has been stalled, but we cannot be lulled into a false sense of security. The proponents of a North American Union are simply retooling and regrouping. The SPP Leader Summit could be used to plot and launch a different course of action with the same goals and end results.
|
| |
Make no mistake about it - the SPP remains a priority to the global elite. We must put it to rest for good and not have it rear its ugly head again under a new name or entity. The North American Union agenda is in trouble. Let’s make the SPP Leader Summit in New Orleans the last one.
|
|
NAFTA Countries to Introduce Simultaneous Legislation to Stop SPP By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Elected representatives from Canada, the U.S., and Mexico have agreed to a plan to introduce simultaneous legislation in an effort to stop the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America. This cross border cooperation will go a long way in further exposing the North American Union agenda.
|
| |
In addition, legislators have agreed to launch a Task Force to renegotiate NAFTA that will be chaired by NDP Trade Critic Peter Julian. It also includes U.S. Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the Honourable Yeidckol Polevnsky (Senator of Mexico State and Vice-president of the Mexican Senate) and the Honourable Victor Quintana (Deputy of the State Chihuahua, Mexico). This is all in an effort to overhaul NAFTA and make it a more fair trade deal. Julian will also be working with Kaptur and Mike Michaud (D-ME) to try and defeat the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
|
| |
Julian said, “The NDP has been campaigning across Canada to expose and stop the SPP. We’ve held over 20 public forums in more than twenty cities and a dozen more are being planned for the spring of 2008. These forums have been held to speak out on the grave concerns surrounding the SPP and to help ensure that Canadians from coast to coast to coast get informed and have their say. This trinational initiative with colleagues from the U.S. and Mexico takes us to a new stage in our fight to stop the SPP.”
|
| |
Discontent towards NAFTA is festering in Mexico, which has seen huge protests by farmers. Since 1994, one quarter of the rural population of Mexico and two million jobs have left the country. Mexican Senator Polevnsky said, “It is indispensable that legislators from all three North American partner countries work together to design an alternative project that takes into account each nations sovereignty, environmental protection, economic competitiveness, migration, and labor rights.”
|
| |
With all this talk about renegotiating NAFTA, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins recently acknowledged that he believes that it is too important to do away with or make any dramatic changes to. He pointed to the fact that, regardless who wins the American presidential election, NAFTA will stand. The SPP is an expansion of NAFTA, and is essentially the framework for a North American Union. On the heels of the next SPP Leader Summit that will be held in New Orleans on April 21 and 22, opposition towards a North American Union is growing in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.
|
| |
The citizens of all three NAFTA countries must demand more transparency in regards to the SPP. Some believe that it might be better to scrap NAFTA and just start from scratch. The reality remains the same - in a North American Union, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico would cease to exist as sovereign nations. This is a decision that should not be left up to corporate elites, bureaucrats or politicians, but to the will of the people.
|
|
Leader of CAP Calls for Referendum and General Strike Regarding SPP By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
The battle lines are being drawn and the Canadian Action Party (CAP) is front and center, fighting the North American Union agenda. They are very adamant that Canada’s sovereignty should not be negotiated away. On their websites homepage it states, “A decision regarding the restructuring of Canada into an integrated North American Union with a common currency is a decision for the citizens of Canada – not for a minority government with an ineffective opposition.”
|
| |
CAP is demanding full disclosure of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). In a recent video address, their leader Connie Fogal called for a referendum and general strike in regards to the SPP. A general strike might be hard to organize, but it would be an effective way of protesting and drawing further attention to this whole process of deeper integration.
|
| |
CAP is concerned, and rightfully so, that any parliamentary vote to try and stop the SPP would probably not succeed. After all, it was the Liberal Party under Paul Martin who began the SPP process, and under Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government, this agenda has only accelerated. CAP is absolutely correct that there needs to be a referendum concerning the SPP, as it should be the people who decide its fate and not politicians whose allegiances might lie elsewhere.
|
| |
CAP wants NAFTA replaced with a trade deal that places Canadians best interests ahead of those of multinational corporations. Fogal said that, “NAFTA was the beginning of the institutional, administrative restructuring of the three nations into a North American Union.”
|
| |
Many Canadians and Americans are taking action to further expose and stop the North American Union. Resolutions stating concerns about the SPP have recently been presented in Missouri House and Senate committees. This is all very encouraging, and with every small victory we are that much closer to defeating this agenda.
|
| |
The Canadian Action Party and their leader Connie Fogal need to be commended for their efforts in trying to stop the North American Union. Fogal said, “If Canada is to be restored to an independent, sovereign and democratic nation, if that is what you want, then your political leaders must take back control of our rules and procedures immediately into the hands of a democratic Parliament. They must act immediately to move the control of our government out of the hands of a cabinet apparatus and a bureaucracy that have abandoned their duty to the citizens and to the public good, and they must disembowel the corporate rule.” Integration into a North American Union is already happening, but there is still time to stop it if we act now.
|
|
Obama and Clinton on Judicial Watch Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians List By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
Hillary Clinton’s ethics have been questioned in the past, but for the most part Barack Obama has enjoyed a relatively free ride in the way of scrutiny from the mainstream media. It is true that Obama doesn’t have the baggage of a Clinton or John McCain, but his name did appear on the Judicial Watch, Washington’s Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians list for 2007. Judicial Watch is a non-partisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability, and integrity in government, politics, and the law.
|
| |
Here’s what Judicial Watch had to say about Obama who made the list. “A Dishonorable Mention last year, Senator Obama moves onto the ten most wanted list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin Tony Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections. It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.”
|
| |
Here’s what they had to say about Clinton. “In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.”
|
| |
The truth is that this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. For those who might think that I am bashing the Democrats and signaling out Obama and Clinton, rest assured that Republicans are not immune to corruption. Former Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee both cracked the top ten list as well. Although McCain did not make the list, there is more than enough dirt on him already. It is not surprising that Ron Paul’s name is no where to be found.
|
| |
Unfortunately, many are able to expose the corruption of the other party, but are complacent, ignorant, or blind to their own party’s corruption. The point is that you probably don’t get to this level in your political career without being severely compromised. There are more than enough skeletons in Obama’s, Clinton’s, and McCain’s closet to bring them down anytime.
|
| |
It is looking more like it will be Clinton or Obama as president. During the presidential campaign it is possible that McCain could self implode. There is also a chance that old and maybe even new scandals could be exposed, thus insuring a Democrat in the White House. Obama claims that he is the candidate for hope and change, but it appears as if little would really change if he is elected. The only thing that could change is there might be someone other than a Bush or a Clinton as president.
|
|
Ron Paul Revolution: Let's Finish What We Started By Dana Gabriel
|
| |
For those Ron Paul supporters who are feeling weary, we need not be discouraged. There is nothing to feel sorry about and all our hard work has not been in vain. In many ways this revolution for change has only just begun. Ron Paul has further passed on the baton to us and what we do with it will ultimately shape our future. We have not been abandoned and he will continue to fight for the Constitution and freedom like he has for the last 30 years.
|
| |
With insurmountable odds we have put a dent in the establishments armor and have changed the rules and the political landscape forever. We are not alone and our voices will be heard. The power is in the people and together there is no limit to what we can accomplish.
|
| |
This movement was always more than about Ron Paul - it is about getting proactive and taking action on our own at a grassroots level. We have him to thank for all the ideas and issues he has injected into the campaign that would have never otherwise seen the light of day.
|
| |
This has been a learning curve and along the way some mistakes have been made, but this will only help us in the long run and make us stronger. Real everlasting change will not come easy, but it is attainable. This is not the end but the beginning, the first stages of this peaceful revolution.
|
| |
This whole election season, I have likened Ron Paul's campaign to the Star Wars movie, A New Hope, and in particular a certain scene. During the lightsaber duel on the Death Star, Obi-Wan Kenobi says to Darth Vader, “You can't win Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” We have not been defeated as this movement will go forward and continue to grow.
| | | |