Second Comment:
Thank you for such a quick reply to my comment about your page on the SPP and the NAU”, however, I do not understand the reply. Of course the SPP is clearly not a treaty, and in my comment, I did not suggest that it was a treaty. The worries that people express about the SPP revolve about the issue that North American integration is being pursued politically by the Executive Branch WITHOUT A TREATY and with a FORMAL ROLE BEING DENIED to the public, citizens organizations, labour and many legislators, who are still in the dark about the continental pact. As I pointed out, the Prime Minister of Canada wrote in a signed statement that he, President Bush, and President Fox signed a “partnership”. What is the difference between signing a partnership and signing an agreement? A signed partnership is an agreement is it not?
When President Bush announced this agreement, he declared that the U.S., Mexico, and Canada “seek to establish a cooperative approach to common security and prosperity issues”, and he stated that each nation will establish ministerial-level Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups to: consult with businesses, state and local governments, and NGOs; set specific, measurable, and achievable goals and implementation dates; identify concrete steps the governments can take to achieve these goals; and report back to the Heads of Government. He then named the departments tasked to establish the working groups, and he named who would head each group. It is preposterous to imagine that a U.S. President would make such an announcement unilaterally without an agreement beforehand with the other two nations, is it not? The three nations must have all agreed to establish similar ministerial working groups.
The fact that the three nations agreed to a partnership to cooperate on security and economic issues going far beyond an “outline for dialogue that imposes no requirements or obligations” is quite clear from the announcement that was made on the White House’s own website and subsequent events. Just read the original announcement and look at the results posted on the SPP.gov website, just three years later: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-4.html. Now, there are twenty working groups in every branch of Government, with Cabinet level reporting, and there are counterparts to each of these groups in Canada and Mexico. These were tangible outcomes were they not?
Lou Dobbs blew the whistle and announced on CNN that “President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the U.S. as we know it, and he took the step without the approval of the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States”. Ref. this video of the CNN broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA.
Author and historian Jerome Corsi also discusses the SPP here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxzs46Nxohk&feature=related Mr. Corsi’s views are shared by some conservative members of Government. His most vocal critics include conservative pundit Michael Medved and CFR member Robert Pastor, also known as “The Father of the North American Union”.
Mr. Corsi’s response to Micheal Medved may be found here: http://stopspp.com/stopspp/?p=77, wherein he wrote:
“The “2005 Report to Leaders” and the companion “2006 Report to Leaders” on the Department of Commerce SPP.gov website describe many different memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements that have been signed by the working groups. Yet, the vast majority of these memoranda of understanding (MOU) and other trilateral agreements have not been submitted to Congress for oversight or for determinations regarding whether a treaty might be required for the agreement to be valid within constitutional restrictions.”
Note: an MOU is a legal agreement. Many Americans are worried that these MOU will be enacted into law essentially as a fait accompli, without significant Congressional debate or public awareness. Even if they are not enacted into law, the result could be a functioning NAU established basically by nothing more than these MOU and private business agreements. These are also tangible outcomes are they not?
Mr. Corsi’s response to Robert Pastor may be found here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16189, wherein he wrote:
“In his pressing enthusiasm for realizing the NAU, Robert Pastor argued in a 2004 article in CFR’s Foreign Affairs, entitled “North America’s Second Decade,” that the United States would benefit by giving up U.S. national Sovereignty. “Countries are benefited,” he wrote, “when they changed these [national sovereignty] policies, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete.
Dr. Pastor’s 19-page curriculum vitae (c.v.) on the website of American University where he is currently a faculty member documents that Dr. Pastor has served as an adviser to every Democratic Party presidential candidate for three decades, since he first supported Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Dr. Pastor was the co-chair of the May 2005 CFR report, “Building a North American Community,” argued that the Security and Prosperity Partnership signed by President Bush with Mexico and Canada on March 23, 2005 should become by 2010 a “North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.” According to his published c.v., Dr. Pastor was the “principal editor” of this CFR report as well as the vice chair of the task force that produced it.
Dr. Pastor left no doubt about his view of U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada in his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through toll booths.”
Dr. Pastor himself proclaims that the May 2005 CFR task force report on which he was vice chair and principal editor was a “blueprint” for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate, Dr. Pastor informed the Foreign Relations Committee of this link:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
