United States of North America
By Steven Yates
Elitists in the United States, Mexico, and Canada
are plotting to merge these three nations into a single regional
government, similar to the European Union.
In 1787, thirteen former-British colonies, that
had briefly been independent states, agreed to create a free trade zone
inside a shared security perimeter. People, goods, and capital would move
freely throughout that region, ignoring previously existing borders. The
union thus created was christened the United States of America.
In the early years of the 21st century, elites in three nations - the
United States, Canada, and Mexico - are busy creating a new political
configuration, called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America (SPP). It would broaden and deepen the relationship created in
1994 among the three nations through the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) in dramatic ways.
The new architecture would include a free-trade-zone, protected by a
common security perimeter, within which goods, people, and capital would
move freely, across what had once been firmly established international
First of all, it would require that U.S. citizens effectively surrender
their citizenship in the independent Constitutional Republic founded in
1787. Unlike the USA, which was an organic outgrowth of a political system
rooted in Anglo-Saxon laws, customs, traditions, and language, the
political entity created through the SPP - in effect, the United States of
North America (USNA) - would be a forced three-way marriage of wildly
incompatible cultures and political systems.
The U.S. and Mexico are separated by language, and have fundamentally
incompatible political systems. Canada, riven with linguistic and regional
conflicts, is hard-pressed to maintain its own unity, without the
additional complications that would arise from an effort to join with the
United States and Mexico. Lacking the natural affinities that led the
original thirteen states to create a Constitutional Republic, the USNA
would likely be held together only through corrupt alliances among ruling
elites, backed by undisguised force.
This past March, President Bush met in Cancun, Mexico, with Mexican
President Vicente Fox, and Canada's newly-elected Prime Minister, Stephen
Harper, to discuss the year-old SPP, which was formally inaugurated a year
ago, in a similar trinational summit in Waco, Texas.
To judge from the official rhetoric emanating from various governmental
sources, the SPP is a collection of harmless, or even commendable,
multi-lateral initiatives. A March 23, White House press release observed:
"The SPP will complement, rather than replace, existing bi-lateral and
tri-lateral fora and working groups that are performing well."
The "working groups" casually referred to in that statement were
created at the March 2005, Waco summit, to create common policies for the
United States, Canada, and Mexico in various economic and security areas.
Those groups are already laying the foundation for a European Union-style
integration of the SPP member nations.
Though the leaders gathered at Cancun spoke in measured terms in
describing this process, President Fox came close to giving away the game.
His remarks underscored the demand for a new U.S. law ensuring "safe and
respectful migration, respecting the rights of people."
Migration, unlike immigration, is the unhindered movement of whole
peoples within national borders. Similar movement across a national border
is either immigration, or emigration. Significantly, President Bush, too,
said that the talks in Cancun often centered on "migration," tacitly
endorsing the same subversive assumption, that the border between the U.S.
and Mexico is as inconsequential as that dividing Utah from Nevada.
Devil in the Details
The joint statement on the SPP, issued on March 23, 2005, described it
as an initiative to:
"... establish a common approach to security to protect North America
from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North
America, and further streamline the security and efficient movement of
legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders."
Eight tri-national SPP "working groups" were then created, to deal with
different subject areas, and instructed to report back within 90 days.
Three months later, the working groups presented an array of ideas for new
bureaucracies and "public-private partnerships," which were formed almost
From the beginning, security - not liberty - has been one
primary focus of the SPP's architects. The "security" agenda provides for
three priority areas with these mandates:
- secure North America from external threats;
- prevent and respond to threats within North America; and
- further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across
our shared borders.
The idea that the SPP will provide Americans with additional security
is absurd. Washington's efforts to secure our present borders are a
spectacular failure - and yet, through the SPP, it would assume a large
share of the responsibility for defending a much larger "perimeter"
encompassing all of North America.
Representative Katherine Harris (R-FL), a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations, and a close political ally of President Bush, has
introduced a bill into the U.S. Congress called the North American
Cooperative Security Act. This bill would begin a process of integrating
Canadian and Mexican defense institutions with those of the United States,
expanding "consultations on defense issues," and "exploring the formation
of law enforcement teams that include personnel from the United States and
Repeating in places, almost word-for-word, the security strategy of the
SPP, that measure is clearly intended to begin the process of bringing the
military and security institutions of the three nations under a central
authority, with a single chain of command. The implications of that merger
are profoundly troubling, to say the least.
Mexico is ruled by a political establishment intimately connected to
that nation's narco-terrorist syndicates. A 2004 United Press
International investigative report into the estimated 3,000
kidnappings in Mexico each year noted: "Mexico has a history of complicity
between law enforcement and actual kidnappers."
In a March 31, Houston Chronicle op-ed column, Judge Michael
McSpadden of Texas' 209 District Court described some things he learned
five years ago while he served "as part of a contingent of Texas judges
[who met] with then-President-elect Vicente Fox's transition team in
Mexico City, to discuss possible changes in Mexico's justice system."
Judge McSpadden wrote:
"Jury trials were not allowed, even though guaranteed by Mexico's
Constitution. There was no live confrontation of witnesses - the judge
decided the case upon the written "declarations" of witnesses. No bonds
were allowed in cases considered serious - such as a false report to a
While Canada's law enforcement system is cleaner and more competent
than Mexico's, that country presents a different set of potential security
risks. Thanks largely to that country's devotion to multi-culturalism and
political correctness, Canada is becoming a haven for Muslim refugees, a
growing population, in which terrorists can take cover.
Corporatism, Not "Prosperity"
The goals of the "prosperity working groups" are similarly misleading.
The prosperity agenda, originally announced a year ago, promoted three
broad agendas: improving productivity, reducing the costs of trade, and
enhancing the quality of life. But, what will their practical effect be?
One useful illustration of the SPP's "prosperity" agenda is the
proposed Automotive Partnership Council of North America, which would
"help identify the full spectrum of issues that impact the industry,
ranging from regulation, innovation, transportation infrastructure, and
border facilitation." This calls for integration of both business and
government, throughout the region, through networks of public-private
"Public-private partnerships" are better described as "corporatism" -
the merger of big business with big government, described by Mussolini as
the foundation of fascism. In such partnerships, government is always the
senior partner. The SPP's "partnership" will offer incentives to
businesses to help further integration, because they'll get preferential
treatment by government. This system will actually circumvent marketplace
competition, leading to fewer choices for consumers. It will also permit
the emerging regional government to exert more control over business.
The SPP is the product of the same minds that devised NAFTA, a
sister-agreement and predecessor of the SPP. The basic treaty of that
supposed free-trade accord is laid out in thousands of pages of dense
regulations, creating scores of unaccountable bureaucratic bodies,
including several trade tribunals, whose rulings are binding on the
citizens of the three NAFTA nations.
Law professor, Peter Spiro, of Hofstra University, said that the
implementation of the NAFTA tribunals was "a fundamental reorientation of
our Constitutional system. You have an international tribunal essentially
reviewing American court judgments."
And, elected officials in the United States have begun giving
precedence to NAFTA rules, over the interests of Americans. For example,
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was told by advisers in 2004
that a proposed tax incentive package encouraging California road-builders
to recycle 32 million used tires from California's vehicles, would violate
NAFTA rules by favoring American recyclers over those of Mexico and
Canada. Schwarzenegger dutifully vetoed the bill.
As if the history of NAFTA didn't provide enough clues as to where the
SPP is taking us, there is still more evidence - the unguarded words of
politicians and their associates in the know.
Following his election in 2000, Mexican President, Vicente Fox, told an
audience in California that his government would "use all our persuasion,
and all our talent, to bring together the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican
governments so that in five or ten years, the border is totally open to
the free movement of workers." Fox was similarly candid in a 2002 address
to an audience in Madrid: "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."
The actions and statements of some U.S. politicians have been similarly
telling. The Bush administration's proposed "guest worker" program, which
is amnesty for illegal immigrants, is a key part of this tri-national
Many of President Bush's staunch supporters, who see him as a
flinty-eyed custodian of our national security, are puzzled over what they
see as his uncharacteristic squishiness on the issue of protecting our
borders. They don't understand that George W. Bush has long been a
proponent of amalgamating the United States with Mexico, and is an
unabashed proponent of regional integration as well.
The SPP, the instrument of that betrayal, does not have any broad base
of public support, beyond the tiny cluster of political, corporate, and
bureaucratic elites that gave us NAFTA and CAFTA.
Americans, by the millions, have been infuriated by the spectacle of
illegal aliens marching in the streets of our cities, demanding they be
given a fast track to citizenship. Our fellow citizens must be educated
about the real design behind the drive for illegal-alien amnesty, and
mobilized to defeat both amnesty and the ongoing drive to create the SPP.
Steven Yates, PhD., teaches philosophy at the
University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical
Original article: eco.freedom.org
Fair Use Notice