Printer Friendly

Following the EU path: the designers of the Security and Prosperity Partnership plan to transform North America into a regional government modeled after the European Union.

Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.

--Mexican President Vicente Fox's "new global agenda" speech to Club XXI in Madrid, Spain, May 16, 2002

Returning to Mexico from George W. Bush's Texas ranch in March 2005, President Vicente Fox told reporters aboard the presidential plane: "I would like you to understand the magnitude of what this means. It is transcendent, it's something that goes well beyond the relationship we have had up to now." The transcendental "it" to which Mr. Fox was referring, of course, is the new Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America (SPP) that he, President Bush, and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin had just launched at their Texas meeting.

President Fox's comment evokes an important question: just what is it that the Security and Prosperity Partnership is transcending? The SPP has signaled the launching of an ongoing political "process" that envisions transcending a great many things, including our borders, our national independence, and our U.S. Constitution. Even a cursory examination of the available SPP reports and the statements of its leading proponents leads to the rational conclusion that the SPP definitely is part of the "long-range objective" mentioned above in the 2002 quote by President Fox, to establish a North American version of the European Union, or EU.

President Fox has been quite voluble on the subject, making repeated calls for and references to EU-style "integration," "convergence," "community," and "union" for North America. In February 2001, President Bush joined President Fox in pledging to "strive to consolidate a North American economic community."

Now, however, the Bush administration and the growing tri-national SPP bureaucracy have become somewhat touchy on this issue, claiming that there is no intention for the SPP to move in an EU-type direction.

But the facts on the ground, together with a plain reading of SPP documents and public admissions by the SPP's leading lights, render these denials less than believable. In fact, even before the introduction of the SPP, NAFTA was morphing into something far beyond the simple "trade agreement" that President Clinton said it was when he signed it in 1993.

Rulings by NAFTA tribunals already have begun mimicking the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, the judicial bodies of the European Union that have been leading the attack on the national sovereignty of EU member states. In 2004, many U.S. politicians, including those who had voted for NAFTA, expressed shock when a panel of NAFTA judges overturned a ruling of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in a case brought by a Canadian company. The company had gone to the NAFTA court because the U.S. Supreme Court had denied the company's appeal. And the NAFTA court, asserting its power under Chapter 11 of the agreement, decided to trump both the Massachusetts court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This is the biggest threat to United States judicial independence that [few people have] heard of and even fewer people understand," John D. Echeverria, a law professor at Georgetown University, told the New York Times following the ruling. "It's basically been under the radar screen," Peter Spiro, a law professor at Hofstra University, said in the same Times article. "But it points to a fundamental reorienration of our constitutional system. You have an international tribunal essentially reviewing American court judgments." (Emphasis added.)

Using the EU as precedent, we can surmise that the rule of law in the United States will increasingly be dictated to us by unelected "trade" officials. The following is a short list of abuses visited upon Europeans by the EU:

* British grocers have been thrown in jail for selling bananas and other produce by the pound, as requested by their customers, rather than by metric weight, as dictated by EU officials in Brussels.

* EU regulators conduct "dawn raids" on businesses without any court warrant, ransacking offices and computers and interrogating owners and employees without allowing them benefit of legal counsel.

* The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Britain must allow homosexuals into its military, while the European Court of Justice ordered Germany to end its ban on women bearing arms in the military.

* EU bureaucrats from Brussels now dictate to parents how and under what conditions they may spank their children.

Incredibly, instead of repairing the constitutional breach by repealing the NAFTA threat, President Bush and the Congress greatly expanded the threat in 2005 by passing the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and initiating the SPP. CAFTA extends a NAFTA-type relationship to Central America.

In "eurospeak," the jargon of the architects of the European Union, CAFTA and SPP are examples of the processes known as "broadening"--by which more members are added to the arrangement--and "deepening"--by which more powers are gradually transferred from the member nation-states to the EU's supranational institutions.

The big push for broadening NAFTA came with the Bush administration's multi-year effort to expand NAFTA to every country in the Western Hemisphere under an agreement to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA. Thanks to increased resistance to the plan in both the United States and Latin America, however, the FTAA failed to secure approval in 2005 and has been, temporarily, put on a back burner. In the meantime, CAFTA and SPP are being used to ratchet up the broadening and deepening processes in preparation for a future reintroduction of the FTAA.

U.S. officials have adopted the euro-speak terminology to describe and promote the transformation of NAFTA into an EU-style supranational arrangement. Hence, for instance, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow and Mexico's Treasury Secretary Gil Diaz issued a joint statement on December 15, 2005 declaring: "Our ongoing work on financial market linkages ... is a key part of the SPP's comprehensive agenda for deepening North American integration."

More and more Americans, however, are beginning to realize that, as in the EU, integration can only progress with the simultaneous disintegration of America's independence and constitutional protections. The peoples of Europe learned this lesson too late and have been fighting a desperate rearguard action for the past decade to stanch an avalanche of oppressive EU legislation and court decisions and prevent swarms of Brussels-based bureaucrats from riding roughshod over their local and national laws and cherished traditions. In a 1991 op-ed, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, a columnist for Britain's Sunday Telegraph, expressed the anger of many over the repeated lies, deception, and betrayal employed to advance EU integration. "Twenty years ago, when the process began, there was no question of losing sovereignty," he wrote. "That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation."

The foundation for what we now know as the EU was laid in 1952 when the treaty creating the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) took effect. This was sold as the way to create security and prosperity in post-World War II Europe. The public was not told that this was just the first step in a process that would lead to a single currency, a European central bank, a continental perimeter replacing national borders, and unaccountable governing institutions that would override their national sovereignty.

The ECSC was gradually broadened and deepened with additional treaties and agreements, becoming the European Economic Community (EEC or Common Market), which later morphed again into the EC, or European Community, before transforming into the European Union. What is most disturbing in all of this evolution is that admissions by EU architects and decades-old documents that only recently have been released clearly show that from the very beginning of the ECSC, the founders planned for their creation to morph into the leviathan it has become, even as they were telling the peoples of Europe not to listen to those "crackpots" who were warning about this danger.

The EU now has fully-functioning legislative, executive, and judicial institutions--equipped with enormous budgets and bureaucracies--that are rapidly stripping member states of all vestiges of sovereignty. Even former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev has commented that the EU's leaders are "constructing a European soviet."

This EU-Western Hemisphere collaboration is applauded and assisted in the United States by top-echelon Democrats and Republicans, corporate globalists, and the policy elites of influential institutions such as Harvard University's David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, the Institute for International Economics, and the Council on Foreign Relations.

In a 2004 article for the CFR's journal Foreign Affairs entitled, "North America's Second Decade," Robert Pastor, a director at the CFR, repeatedly calls on the "North American Community" to emulate the EU model by:

* Merging "immigration and refugee policies";

* Establishing a continental "security perimeter";

* Transferring at least $100 billion to Mexico over the next 10 years for "infrastructure development";

* Creating institutions necessary for the SPP to effectively exercise executive, legislative, and judicial powers; and

* Developing a North American passport.

Pastor calls sovereignty, as presently defined, "obsolete," and contends that North American governments should be reeducating their citizens "to think of themselves as North Americans."

If Americans allow the SPP to go forward, we will find a great many treasured things declared obsolete and defined out of existence--things like independence, sovereignty, the Constitution, and freedom.
COPYRIGHT 2006 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:EU MODEL; Free Trade Agreement, 1992, United States-Canada-Mexico
Author:Jasper, William F.
Publication:The New American
Geographic Code:100NA
Date:Oct 2, 2006
Words:1540
Previous Article:Green light from the border to K.C.: as part of the NAFTA Super Highway system, a Mexican customs inspection facility is planned to be constructed on...
Next Article:Expert analysis of the NAU: Dr. Jerome Corsi shares his in-depth knowledge of the effort to create one political entity out of the United States,...
Topics:


Related Articles
First Europe, now Africa. (Insider Report).
The world government two-step: regional arrangements such as the EU and the proposed FTAA supposedly promote free trade, but their real purpose is to...
Empire vs. merger.
Creating the North American Union: the plans for a North American Security and Prosperity Partnership are steps on the way to a North American Union.
GOP deeds under a microscope: by failing to oppose the dangerous policies of the Bush administration, much of the GOP leadership has proven that...
"SuperSlab" paves the way: the NAFTA Super Highway, nicknamed "SuperSlab" by some, is a planned system of roads, rail lines, and more that will speed...
Expert analysis of the NAU: Dr. Jerome Corsi shares his in-depth knowledge of the effort to create one political entity out of the United States,...
Bush backs APEC.
From NAFTA to the NAU: NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership are gradual steps toward merging the United States, Mexico, and Canada into...
The European template: plans for creating a North American Union are following the well established template successfully used to submerge the...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters