PRE-SPP SUMMIT CONFERENCE REVEALS TRUE ELITIST MINDSET PART 1 of 2

[Guest guest]

PRE-SPP SUMMIT CONFERENCE REVEALS TRUE ELITIST MINDSET

PART 1 of 2

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick25.htm

Patrick Wood

August 26, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

 

The August 21, 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in

Montebello, Quebec with U.S. President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Harper and

Mexican President Calderon was held behind closed doors. Nothing of substance

has

been reported by the press, even though several major media outlets attended

the event.

 

To understand what might have happened, we can turn to an August 13 policy

conference that was held in Washington, DC. Titled " The Montebello Summit and

the Future of North America, " the conference presented three panels of global

thinkers, including Dr. Robert A. Pastor, to prognosticate on the past, present

and future of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and North America.

 

 

These are the academics who represent the policy leading up to each annual

SPP summit.

 

Not coincidentally, the conference was scheduled just one week prior to the

SPP Summit held in Montebello, Quebec, where the heads of state would

collaborate on issues of " deep integration " between the three nations.

 

The conference organizer, Professor Christopher Sands, is a Senior Fellow at

Hudson, a colleague of Dr. Robert Pastor at American University and a member

of the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Section of the North American

Competitiveness Council.

 

The conference theme was centered around Sands' white paper (co-authored with

Canadian Greg Anderson ) entitled, " " Negotiating North America: The Security

and Prosperity Partnership. "

 

http://hudson.orgpdf_upload/HudsonNegotiatingNorthAmericaadvanceproof2.pd\

f

Sands and Anderson concluded their 35 page paper by explaining the need to

 

" fix the short-comings of the present process to address the growing need for

cooperation in the management of continental economic integration and

security. " (p. 31)

 

Robert Pastor was not so forgiving of the SPP process, even though he was the

one who originally suggested it in 2003. Pastor openly criticized SPP as

being too bureaucratic, too slow and too vague to be of any good. Note carefully

though, that critics of SPP are being heard loud and clear! All of the

panelists pointedly addressed public criticism and Sands and Anderson wrote,

 

" What U.S. negotiators must realize is that North America in the internet age

can become an echo chamber in which Canadian and Mexican fears are amplified

by U.S.-based criticism, and when the latter goes unanswered, the effect is

corrosive to public support in all three countries. Worse, after a period of

reverberating recriminations when breakthrough agreement is achieved, the

Canadians and Mexicans will be more anxious and resistant to North American

cooperation than before and the U.S. public more hostile and skeptical as well. "

(p.

31)

 

Their concern over public support is curious. What public support?

 

Pastor shed some light on this when he stated,

 

" Public opinion indicates that a strong majority believe in a common security

perimeter. A majority in all three countries are in favor of moving towards

an economic union, although I think they mean a customs union, if they felt

that it would improve their standard of living and not harm their culture or

their environment. An overwhelming majority would like greater coordination of

environmental, transportation and defense policies. More modest majorities in

favor of migration, energy and banking coordination among our three countries. "

 

Whatever opinion polls Pastor is referring to, they fly in the face of the

recent FT/Harris poll mentioned in " Global Backlash Against Globalization, "

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/north_american_union/global_backlash\

_ag

ainst_globalization?_2007072672/ where only 20 percent of those polled were

solidly in favor of globalization. Still, the most disturbing fact is that

Pastor uses made-up statistics to justify his pre-conceived position. This

writer has often observed this type of self-justification over many years.

 

When challenged about claims of public support, elitists like Pastor will

backpedal and say that if the public only knew what they know, then of course

they would be in favor of globalization! But in fact, the public doesn't know.

The elitist presumption to know the public mind is staggering.

 

A single dissenting voice was allowed on the panel, namely, Dr. John Fonte,

who is the director of the Center for American Common Culture at The Hudson

Institute. Fonte's rebuttal was so succinct and authoritative that it is

repeated

below in its entirety.

 

Panel 3: After Montebello: The View from the Summit, - and Where We Go From

Here - Dr. John Fonte

 

My vision of the future of North America is rather different from the one you

have heard. I see a 21st century North American consisting of three

independent democratic nation states, the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

There

would be reasonable cooperation and security and trade, but as sovereign

democratic states, they would rule themselves. For example, American border

security

would be determined by Americans. Canadian trade, economic, and energy policies

would be determined by Canadians. And if some of those – America didn’t like

some of those policies, well, that is called democracy.

 

Mexican education and cultural policy would be determined by Mexicans. Thus,

Mexican schools, for example, would continue to promote Mexican identity to

Mexican students, not, as recommended by the Council on Foreign Relations, to,

quote, give students a greater sense of North American identity. I would expect

that most ordinary citizens in the United States, Canada and Mexico, would

prefer their educational institutions focused on their own national identity and

history.

 

Now, let’s look at some broad – what I see as broad problems with the SPP in

general. One is conceptual, philosophical. There is in a sense a democracy

deficit in terms of process. And, two, in terms of the substance of the policies

them­selves, which I’ll look at – examine that: border security,

immigration, and how it meshes with the traditional American concept of the

assimilation

of immigrants, what we used to proudly call Americanization.

 

On the first point, democracy deficit, the SPP has some very far-reaching

goals: the harmonization of regulation, standards, border immigration policies.

The legal and constitutional authority for SPP is supposedly in the fine print

in NAFTA. But, as has been pointed out, there is no congressional

authorization for SPP. There have been no funds appropriated by Congress

directly for SPC –

SPP. There is little oversight or congregational hearings, no real public

involvement. It is not a treaty, no real transparency, except for the material

released reluctantly after freedom-of-information requests.

 

Actually, just as an aside, I was rather astounded by the last panel when the

question was, should we know who was actually attending these meetings, and

the person on the panel said, well, that really wouldn’t serve any purpose if

you essentially know who is coming or not. This tells us something about the

mindset at work.

 

In short, the SPP contains none of the regular procedures of American

constitutional democracy. As the Anderson-Sands paper points out, there has been

a

lack of response to Congress by the Bush administration.

 

Now, unlike some, I don’t believe a conspiracy is at work; nevertheless, the

North American integration process, the NSPP, is deeply flawed both

conceptually and administratively. Obviously there are areas of cooperation that

are

being pursued by SPP and others that make sense in health regulations, trade,

intelligence cooperation and so on. However, the issue is a border security, in

immigrations, that are issues in America that will be decided by the Congress

of the United States, not delegated to executive branch officials and

transnational corporate executives.

 

Let’s look at some specifics: border security. It’s clear that the SPP

document, as it states, the immediate number-one priority is, quote, “to

facilitate

the movement of people across borders of North America.†Now, unlike Adam

Smith in “The Wealth of Nations,†SPP does not put – does indeed put

commerce

over security. Remember Smith put security over commerce in the wealth of

nations.

 

Jim Edwards writes in a background paper for the Center for Immigration Study

– I urge you to read that, along with the Judicial Watch’s Freedom

Information Note, which are very interesting on what – of some of the reports

on some

of the meetings. Edwards says the SPP reports prioritize speed over security. I

think that is right. We’ll give you an example here. The North American

Competitiveness Council report of February 2007 have the following

recommendation:

Develop and adopt a low-cost, easily attainable ID and

citizenship-verification document as an alternative to a passport. And that is

almost an invitation

to fraud given what we know about fraudulent documents in the immigration

business in the last 10 years.

 

These priorities are vaguely written and ambiguous, but implicit is the

suggestion there should be one border for all of North America. Indeed, there is

a

discussion by the traveler screening system working group of one card, and

this has been – this is the suggestion. It is somewhat ambiguous in SPP. Well,

this is an absolutely crucial issue. Are we talking about one border for North

America, or when you cross the Mexican- Guatemalan border, are you in the

United States, in which case our security is dependent on Mexican-border

security.

 

 

The implication of in SPP is a yes, but, as I say, it’s ambiguous. It would

make much more sense in terms of border security and the war on terror if we

had a layered system of borders. Sure, a North American outer border would be

fine, but then even tougher borders – U.S.-Mexican border and the

U.S.-Canadian

border – tougher as the administration is now belatedly saying the last few

weeks that it plans on doing.

 

 

One of the problems is this process has been dominated by corporate special

interests and not by the national security interests, by border security

interests of the United States. And I believe that overall that proposals in SPP

would actually weaken border security. For part two click below.

 

Click here for part -----> 2, http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick26.htm

 

 

 

© 2007 Patrick Wood -

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Patrick M. Wood is editor of The August Review, which builds on his original

research with the late Dr. Antony C. Sutton, who was formerly a Senior Fellow

at the Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution at Stanford

University. Their 1977-1982 newsletter, Trilateral Observer, was the original

authoritative critique on the New International Economic Order spearheaded by

members of

the Trilateral Commission.