Myth vs. fact: in their myth-busting attempts, the architects of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) use half-truths and lies to conceal the real intent inherent in their plans: building a North American Union.

When President Bush and his counterparts from Canada and Mexico created the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, they took a substantial step toward unifying the three nations in a North American Union. Aware of the potential for controversy, the SPP has sought to dispel "myths" about the arrangement by posting a document entitled SPP Myths vs Facts to the official SPP website, spp.gov. The document is intended to debunk assertions that the SPP is a further step toward the North American Union. What it does, instead, is cleverly spin the truth, as an examination of the document reveals.

Myth per spp.gov: "The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency."

FACT: The SPP claims, "It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency." Elsewhere, officials stated otherwise. In 2001. Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, called for a North American Community. In remarks that are still available from the web page of the U.S. Embassy, Cellucci says, "It is particularly important that these three countries continue to work together to build this North American community." In fact, even President Bush has admitted that the ultimate goal is union. The admission came at a press conference attended by President Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts at Baylor University on March 23, 2005. "Keeping in mind, in front of us, the European Union," a reporter asked, "how much is this partnership a first step towards continental integration?" Bush responded, saying, "The vision that you asked about in your question as to what kind of union might there be, I see one based upon free trade, that would then entail commitment to markets and democracy, transparency, rule of law."

Myth per spp.gov: "The SPP was an agreement signed by President Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005."

FACT: According to the SPP, the arrangement is a "dialogue" only. "The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed." Strictly speaking, this is true. This fact, however, does not nullify the real impact of the SPP on furthering North American integration. The arrangement is a sort of "soft law" that lays the foundation for future, legally binding arrangements. Soft law has long been used to build international arrangements that eventually are enforced. This has been a common tactic in creating international environmental arrangements. The Worldwatch study After the Earth Summit: The Future of Environmental Governance described this use of soft law. "Paradoxically, one way to make ... agreements more effective is in some cases to make them less enforceable--and therefore more palatable to the negotiators who may initially feel threatened by any loss of sovereignty," the study observed. "So-called 'soft law'--declarations, resolutions, and action plans that nations do not need to formally ratify and are not legally binding--can help to create an international consensus, mobilize aid, and lay the groundwork for the negotiation of binding treaties later."

Myth per spp.gov: "The SPP infringes on the Sovereignty of the United States."

FACT: In answer to this "myth" the SPP says, "Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States." This flies in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Consider the borders alone. The SPP envisions replacing the borders around the United States with borders around North America, a de facto geographical merger of the three formerly sovereign nations. The SPP's weak protestations to the contrary are laughable.

Myth per spp.gov: "The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution."

FACT: The SPP's answer is that it "is legal and in no way violates the Constitution." This is another "truth" used as a human shield to cover another nest of dangerous lies. It is a fact that no treaty legitimizing the SPP has been signed and that there has been no Senate ratification. Therefore, the SPP has no legal bearing on the United States, and it consequently remains firmly within the realm of soft law, for now. Unfortunately, the Executive Branch is cavalierly pursuing the North American Union through the SPP without congressional assent. This is another neat "end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece," in the words of CFR internationalist scholar Richard Gardner, who described the strategy to build regional governance in a piecemeal fashion in his seminal 1974 article "The Hard Road to World Order."

Myth per spp.gov: "The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money."

FACT: In response to this "myth," the SPP says: "The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources" and that in the long term, "it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork." First, if the SPP is being paid for within the existing budget, then it is already costing taxpayers money. Second, governments have never been able to cut red tape. Building bigger, regionally integrated governments always creates more red tape, not less. The European Union, for instance, is notorious for the Byzantine twists and turns of its bureaucracy. The real issue, though, is with joint security of the three nations. The United States is tar and away the most powerful nation on the planet in terms of law enforcement and military resources and technology. If North America is going to be secured collectively, it is going to be done with U.S. resources. Naturally, U.S. taxpayers would then pay the tab.

Myth per spp.gov: "The SPP is meant to deal with immigration reform and trade disputes."

FACT: The SPP points out that "Immigration reform is a legislative matter currently being debated in Congress and is not being dealt with in the SPP." Again, true to a point, but this conceals the real effect the SPP and North American Union will have on immigration. SPP documents repeatedly state that the aim is to enforce North American borders rather than national borders. Already, efforts are underway to speed the flow of goods and people across the borders between the three nations. Ultimately, under the progressing plan for the North American Union, the borders between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada will fade in importance. If that happens, immigration will cease. We'll all be North Americans.