Focusing on the Data

Tom Mannis and I are having a disagreement about some terminology and how it applies to the issue of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) aka North American Union, as well as the issue itself.

Let me start with the terminology, specifically the word 'conspiracy.' Random House Websters Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, Copyright 2001 (the latest I have) defines conspiracy as follows:

1. The act of conspiring
2. An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons
3. A combination of persons for a secret, unlawful or evil purpose
4. Law An agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act
5. Any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result

Tom's example may fit #5, but in general the word's definition is used to describe an act that is by its nature wrong, especially the legal definition. It is clear that the folks speaking out against the proposals for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America see the SPP and the activities around it as wrong, and likely illegal. The implicit if not explicit secrecy, the lack of transparency around these meetings and what is coming out of them further fuels the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), and on this point I agree that the players need to be far more forthcoming. The FUD will continue unabated otherwise.

However, I think the FUD is also being fueled by folks who either don't, or won't, face the political and economic facts of life, preferring instead to pour gas onto an already flaming pyre. Articles such as this one are a good example.

Dana Gabriel sees the SPP as primarily an opportunity for corporate hegemony:

Multinational corporations view borders as barriers to increased profits and envision a world without them, where an endless supply of cheap goods and labor is able to move freely.

and

Trade deals such as NAFTA best serve corporate interests, and deeper trilateral integration is a stepping stone towards the FTAA and a Pan-American Union. The proposed FTAA would expand NAFTA to the rest of the hemisphere. It is more than just a trade deal, but a system of control which will further empower transnational corporation's rights. Theses trade deals are helping to bring about a new economic and political entity while undermining democratic control in regards to domestic policy making. This will eventually lead to the complete loss of our independence and our sovereignty forever.

How is this accomplished?

There are upwards of 20 working groups and subgroups, working with over 300 agencies on harmonizing regulations, writing out policy initiatives and recommendations.

and

Recently, Canadian pesticide regulations were harmonized with those of the United States. Canadian, Mexican, and U.S. food and drug regulations are also being harmonized through the Trilateral Cooperation Charter. Mexico is spearheading this particular initiative through the Mexico, United States, Canada Health Fraud working group (MUCH). The North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) is made up of 30 senior private sector representatives from all three countries. It is part of the SPP process providing recommendations on issues such as border regulations, competitiveness in automotive, transportation, and manufacturing service sectors. The North American Aviation Trilateral (NAAT) was established to help achieve the SPP's goals in matters of civil aviation. Here is a quote from a statement released by the Ministers Responsibility for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America in February of 2007. “We have tasked SPP working groups and coordinators with revitalizing and streamlining their work plans to ensure that the initiatives are more focused and results-orientated.”

Remember, Dana Gabriel is convinced that this is all leading to the end of national sovereignty - This will eventually lead to the complete loss of our independence and our sovereignty forever.

I don't agree. Rules and regulations are the tools to implement laws. Revising rules and regulations does not necessarily constitute the surrender of national independence and sovereignty. Revising rules and regulations to improve cooperation is not new, something the site vivelecanada details in their timeline. Through all those years we remain the USA.

What I think has really set this off is Robert Pastor's proposal, which was nothing more than a proposal. This is the potential nightmare, although it is unlikely that anything he proposes will be implemented as envisioned. In fact, not even the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) suggests that the loss of national sovereignty is on the horizon, and they are often seen as proponents of 'one government' style thinking.

In 2005 the CFR put out comments and recommendations regarding the future of North America, targeted specifically at the SPP and a meeting underway by the three principal countries in Texas. The CFR did not, at that time at least, envision what Gabriel and others fear:

A new North American community will not be modeled on the European Union or the European Commission, nor will it aim at the creation of any sort of vast supranational bureaucracy. Our vision of North America is one of three sovereign states whose formal collaboration must reflect their mutual interdependence while respecting their differences.

In fact, no supranational bureaucracy superseding the national systems has been proposed by statute. I doubt any such proposal would go far. So where do I stand on this?

1 - I think the concerns being raised are overblown. We do need more transparency, not less, when dealing with issues that will impact the economic, security, and other interests of this nation and Canada and Mexico. It is far too soon to be claiming that the SPP will destroy the USA as we know it.

2 - The North American community will ultimately be driven to make regulatory changes, and likely statutory ones, to enable it to survive and compete in the future. I don't know that this will happen in my lifetime, and I certainly can't say what the community will look like, but we need to anticipate that reality. And therein lies the rub.

Americans must start thinking in the long term. The Pentagon will tell you that the Chinese Army thinks in 50 year increments, and is not wedded to immediate gratification, e.g. success, in reaching its goals. If it takes them 50 years to hack their way into our computer-based defense systems, they will patiently work the issue for 50 years, or longer if needed. We tend to think in increments associated with major political elections.

The FUD being promulgated by the opponents of the SPP is likely going to set back any rational discussion for years. Why? Because we are in a Presidential election cycle and the leading Republican candidates are falling over themselves establishing their patriotic creds, and sometimes it includes coming out against the SPP. In reality, once in office, whoever is the President will be looking for ways to improve the relationships with Canada and Mexico, and especially facilitate actions that will strengthen economic and security ties. It may not be named SPP, and I am certain there will be statutes passed to protect our sovereignty, but harmonizing regulations will continue, at the very least.

If we would focus on opening the doors and discussing the very real issues we may find the points of consensus to implement a vision of a regional community that also respects our identities as nations. Right now, I don't see that happening.