Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Busting Paranoid Right-Wing Fantasies of Dissolving the Mexico-U.S.-Canada Borders

By Manuel Pérez Rocha and Sarah Anderson, AlterNet. Posted April 9, 2008.


It's time to call BS on the idea of a mythical North American Union.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

This month, President Bush will host the leaders of Canada and Mexico to advance the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a project Lou Dobbs has predicted will "end the United States as we know it."

Lou sounds downright blasé, though, compared to all the online ranting and raving on this subject. And while there are plenty of reasons for progressives to be up in arms over this effort to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement, the xenophobes have clearly cornered the market.

In their paranoid fantasies, the three North American executive powers are secretly plotting to surrender everything they hold dear about the good ol' USA. The U.S. borders, the flag, and even the almighty American dollar would disappear as the country is submerged into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

Check out amerocurrency.com, whose creators are convinced that while the SPP hasn't replaced the dollar with a North American currency just yet, the switch is right around the corner. To raise alarm bells, these folks have gone ahead and designed our future money themselves. The cost of purchasing uno "amero": $10.

From the always imaginative John Birch Society, you can order a poster featuring our future North American Union flag, a collage of the three countries' current emblems with -- gasp! -- the socialist maple leaf dead center.

After an intro image of North America bursting into flames, Stopspp.com offers screeds by anti-immigrant Minutemen about how the SPP will fling open U.S. borders to terrorists, drunken Mexican truck drivers and tens of millions more illegal immigrants who will infect us all with tuberculosis.

The video "North American Union and Vchip Truth" cranks things up another notch. Viewed more than 4.8 million times, it presents the SPP as a big step towards a single world government, with David Rockefeller preventing any resistance by implanting us all with Vchips. We can only hope this is satire, but the 10,000 comments by Youtubers suggest that many viewers aren't getting the joke.

All this would be simply entertaining if it weren't for the fact that the SPP truly is a dangerous initiative -- but not for the reasons cited by the xenophobes.

Launched in 2005, the SPP is an ongoing process of negotiation between the three countries' executive powers to change regulations and other policies to boost business and support the U.S. War on Terror. Twenty SPP working groups on everything from financial services to intelligence cooperation hammer out details in between the annual presidential summits.

In Mexico and Canada, progressive activists are already highly mobilized on the SPP. And while the far right has dominated the U.S. discourse, this is beginning to change. A half dozen U.S. progressive groups organized a strategy meeting in Washington, D.C., in March with activists and legislators from all three countries. Together with local activists in New Orleans, the site of the fourth SPP Presidential Summit on April 21-22, they are planning a Peoples Summit and a trinational meeting of energy sector workers.

Here are 10 reasons why progressives are paying attention to the SPP:

1. No democratic oversight. Although elected officials in all three countries have demanded transparency, they continue to be excluded from the SPP Presidential summits, ministerial meetings and working groups. Legislators have formed a trinational task force to stop the SPP.

2. Secrecy. The SPP excludes civil society organizations and the media from all meetings. During a peaceful demonstration outside the last summit in Canada, the government sent in undercover agents posing as rock-wielding protestors. After being confronted with video footage, authorities fessed up to the scheme.

3. Only big business has a voice. Wal-Mart, Lockheed Martin, and 28 other corporations and business associations are part of an official SPP advisory body called the North American Competitive Council. The council made 51 proposals to SPP negotiators in February 2007 on issues as varied as taxation and patent rights. Six months later, they boasted that "all three of our governments have committed themselves to taking action on many of our recommendations."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: nafta, nau, conspiracism, spp

Manuel Pérez Rocha is an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, where he is leading an initiative on the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Sarah Anderson directs IPS's Global Economy Project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Excellent Article ... And there are other issues as well.
Posted by: mmckinl on Apr 9, 2008 12:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only defense we have against multi national corporatism is our sovereignty. All these free trade deals, NAFTA,CAFTA and the rest subvert our sovereignty as well as the people of the cosigner nations.

We must rescind all these trade agreements along with the WTO otherwise we are second class citizens to the multi nationals and their super sovereignty guaranteed by the WTO We are already learning that many environmental initiatives are illegal under the WTO, decided by the extra national WTO court and enforced by the Bank of International Settlements or BIS.

All countries need tariffs to protect themselves against unscrupulous and unlawful tax avoidance schemes, product dumping, environmental damage and labor arbitrage of the multi nationals.

The multi nationals are buying governments everywhere through the auspices of the IMF and the World Bank that enrich each countries oligarchy while impoverishing the middle and working class, causing desperation among the poor while emptying the country sides to pillage natural resources and farmland. It is no accident that while said countries GDP does very well only the top 1% do very well while the rest of the population suffers. This is now happening in the United States. We saw it from 2002 until last year ... our GDP went way up while real wages were stagnant or declining.

These agreements are the backbone of the neoliberalism that has brought us ruinous trade and budget deficits while subverting our Bill of Rights, our citizenship and our government.

This is about more than the SPP, it is about the corporatism that is demolishing our rights, our jobs and our future. We must protect our sovereignty!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it "paranoia"?
Posted by: mwildfire on Apr 9, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives may be worrying about some of the wrong things most, but their anxiety and outrage are not misplaced. Maybe they worry about the "illegals" a lot, largely thanks to Lou Dobbs and others I believe made a deliberate decision to create a big issue out of this for scapegoating and distraction purposes...but their main worry is that democracy and sovereignty in the US is threatened by secret deals. I'd worry also about Canadians and Mexicans, but they're not wrong about the threat to US sovereignty--and they ARE aware of corporate control. My sister is a Bircher, and sends me things that vary from laughable absurdities (global warming is a hoax) to a push to pass a bill sponsored by Ron Paul which would outlaw signing statements, renditions, etc--I think of it as the Restore the Constitution Act. And they worry, rightly, about the Real ID Act. So keep your eyes open but accept these people as our allies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is it "paranoia"? Posted by: Pax99
» RE: Is it "paranoia"? Posted by: willymack
» RE: Is it "paranoia"? Posted by: mwildfire
This could work if Mexico raises its game
Posted by: Bobsays on Apr 9, 2008 4:55 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with Mexico isn't its culture (which is amazing), its food (which is amazing), nor most of its people. It is the whole atmosphere of corruption and desperation that inevitably brings down anything it comes close to: and that to date has been the US.

Just as has happened with the European Union, Mexico would need to go through a process of learning how to behave if it wants to integrate with the US and Canada. So that means no hang-dog faces standing at road sides trying to undercut local wages, no grouping together and running drug gangs with acres of 'hommies'.

Canada is a very civilised country, and I don't think Canadians would like importing the sort of trash you see in LA etc. And hair nets don't go well with toques.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The problem with Mexico... Posted by: buffeliscious
The crazies are not as crazy as you would have them be.
Posted by: leland61 on Apr 9, 2008 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact is that NAFTA and other such programs are designed with a purpose of getting rid of any pesky democratic modalities that interfere with the operation of large corporations.

It is working. NAFTA is responsible in large part for the amazing increase of undocumented workers coming from Mexico. Bill Clinton made this happen when he greased the track for NAFTA. It destroyed the livelihoods of about 4,000,000 farmers in Mexico, their families and related businesses dependent on their purchasing power. Why? NAFTA allowed taxpayer subsidized cheap grains to supplant locally grown crops in Mexico. It did not produce any appreciable increase in other employment opportunities in Mexico. Those people were desperate and starving - they crossed the border to work to eat.

The USA made this happen. Bill Clinton and the idiot Congress made this happen. It is a direct assault on the working classes in all three countries - the rich know that. Their totally owned and controlled "mass media" will not talk about it.After all we have had a class war going on in this country since the beginning - only people are unwilling to call a spade a spade.

NAFTA, GATT etc are all attacks by the rich and powerful on democratic government around the world. Whenever W. talks about expanding freedom around the world he means freedom for the corporate rulers to own the rest of us. He is talking about the modern equivalent of serfdom for the billions and ownership by a few million.

Bill and Hilary are on the same page. I suspect that unless you are on the same page you will not be elected president no matter which of the two labels you wear. After all there is only one real party in this country and that is the party of the corporate kleptocrats who pull the strings and run the media propaganda machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» minor conspiracies, major impact Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» no conspiracy-monger here Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
Check out Council of Canadians: INTEGRATE THIS
Posted by: Tigana on Apr 9, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Canadians don't WANT to be part of this deal - with good reason.
Find out why here: http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Scary, Spooky
Posted by: Mexitli on Apr 9, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But the writers think the U.S. as an empire will las forever, which it will not.

I think what we'll see here in what's called the "Continental U.S." is U.N. troops patrolling in order to stop all the countries from seeking revenge on the general Gringo public.

I also think that the people of Mexico, I mean the REAL PEOPLE OF MEXICO, not the Euro-elites, will eventually rule the country.

Also, the is very little incentive for the ruling Euro-elites in MX to cut the U.S. in on it's cash cow.

One good thing about them, and it's the ONLY good thing about them, is that they dont like "Euro-Americans."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Niether do Mexicans
Posted by: Mexitli on Apr 9, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article may as well be about colonizing Mars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SPP is Fascists
Posted by: HBoyer on Apr 9, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SPP is a prelude to Fascists Government run by Corporate dictators. Once we give SPP power, the NORTH AMERICAN UNION will be formed and democracy as we know it will perish.

"Profits Before Democracy" will be the national
motto.

Remember, corporations brought you child labor, pollution, peasant wages, corrupt government, and supported dictatorship and fascists governments all over the world.

General Motors, Dupont, the Bush family helped Hitler build concentration camps.

Thank you for providing talking points against the SPP and the North American Union

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While some rage
Posted by: JSquercia on Apr 9, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While some rage at our loss of sovereignty to the UN most are unaware that Organizations created to encourage "Free Trade" such as the WTO and NAFTA are able to overturn domestic laws if they find them in conflict with said organization .There was an incident where the Clinton Administration sued the government to overturn laws enacted by the Congress . The suit was brought on the basis of Mexico's objecting to some law passed (I think it was environmental). So we had the spectacle of Mexico telling the US Congress they could NOT pass a Law and Worse Still we had the Executive Branch siding with Mexico .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is There Anyone Out There
Posted by: Southern Gal on Apr 9, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is there anyone out there who does not belive that corporations control the world? Money and power are the bottom lines and it doesn't matter what the people of these countries think or want. We have better and faster communication through the Internet, so more people are aware of what's going on. The problem is that we seem powerless to stop it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

STOP shopping!!!!!! (as much as possible)
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 9, 2008 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
STOP shopping!!!!!! (as much as possible)

Vote with your dollars (what's left of them).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Action relevant now against this!
Posted by: mutualaid on Apr 9, 2008 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't the authors mention Plan Mexico currently being considered for $ by the U.S. Congress?

Guess they just want to be 'concerned' without defeating an SPP initiative that's actually moving now before our legislature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stop Plan Mexico! Posted by: no$forviolence
» Annex Mexico? Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Annex Mexico? Posted by: Mexitli
» Mexitli---Aztlan Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Annex Mexico? Posted by: john mont
Did I miss something?
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 9, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Authors Rocha and Anderson describe Lou Dobbs of having "paranoid fantasies," then list nine reasons out of ten that indicate he is very much in touch with reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Did I miss something? Posted by: kellysgarden
» RE: Did I miss something? Posted by: kellysgarden
» Seems that way. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Seems that way. Posted by: mmckinl
Wow.
Posted by: Scientz on Apr 9, 2008 7:44 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The comments for this article are a fascinating lesson in hyperbole and paranoia.

Supranational governance is coming. Everywhere. And there's not a damn thing ANY of you can do about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow. Posted by: Pax99
» RE: Wow. Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Wow. Posted by: mmckinl
Fuck that
Posted by: davesilvan on Apr 9, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not MexiAmeriCanadian, I'm American, and this country would be just fine if we could get it's people to follow the fucking Constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fuck that Posted by: Pax99
» RE: Fuck that Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Fuck that Posted by: Pax99
» LoL! Posted by: Mexitli
» The Constitution Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
» pfft! best reply so far Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
NAU?
Posted by: sre on Apr 9, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree that a union of the three countries mentioned wouldn't be good as the scene is currently unfolding. My question is, as a loyal and patriotic American: Why not allow Mexico and Canada to join the U.S. under the rules of statehood? They can petition for statehood just as in the past the other territories did and they would have to meet the same requirements as far as population, language, etc. That's not a complete solution but it's a start. Maybe we should proceed on that premise if the other two countries on this continent want that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NAU? Posted by: emmas
» RE: NAU? Posted by: Pax99
» 'Scuse me...? Posted by: CanuckKid
» RE: NAU? Posted by: doubter
» RE: NAU? Posted by: buzzsaw
» RE: NAU? Posted by: doubter
» RE: NAU? Posted by: Cybershaman
» American Exceptionalism Gone Wild! (NT) Posted by: Joshua Holland
» history/government lesson... Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: history/government lesson... Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: NAU? Posted by: cns
Who woulda guessed?
Posted by: Axiom69 on Apr 9, 2008 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A topic that puts Progressives and Conservatives on the same side. Maybe for different reasons but still on the same side. Perhaps this will start an era of cooperation and we can start working together on issues like holding our elected officials accountable for crimes instead of making excuses for the ones on our side and blasting the ones on the other for doing the same thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who woulda guessed? Posted by: BCcovers
Stop Shopping?
Posted by: Mexitli on Apr 9, 2008 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amen to that!

start saving and cash out your dollars asap for tangibles!

(ehh, not the depreciating consumer tangibles)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Any larger governing body should have representatives elected by the people.
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Apr 9, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the biggest problems I have with talk of a North American Union or World Government is the implication that the President and possibly Congress gets to choose who represents us there.

We the people should elect any representatives that make up such a larger governing body.


That said I also have a big problem with any kind of North American Union or World Government tax. Soon enough such taxes will be used for income redistribution which will lead to ever larger governments requiring more and more of our money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hint: Xenophobic right-wing conspiracy theories about a mythical North American Union are not among
Posted by: aonghus36 on Apr 9, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it a right wing idea? I think that is a very divisive conclusion, and a false one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same difference
Posted by: Habaro on Apr 9, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Weren't the author's fears essentially just a watered down version of the "xenophobes'"? Of course it wouldn't start off so extreme--its all about ratcheting gradualism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ACLU on RFID(V Chips)
Posted by: aonghus36 on Apr 9, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ACLU is hardly a bunch a right wing nut cases. Here is there position on RFID chips.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17423pub20031130.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ACLU on RFID(V Chips) Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: ACLU on RFID,(not V Chips) Posted by: nightgaunt
Speaking as a Canadian
Posted by: wolfgangmo75 on Apr 9, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this is a horribly bad idea. If we open our borders to illegal "yank-backs" they'll take all of our union jobs and demand access to our universal health care and quality of life. They will overrun us and infect us with TB.

We need to build a big damn fence or next they'll be playing hockey!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: Mexitli
» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: Speaking as a Canadian Posted by: cbishopp
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Unnecessary ideological divisiveness
Posted by: pfeifer999 on Apr 9, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors of this article are not doing our country a service.

National sovereignty as an issue that unites the vast majority of Americans, of every political and economic background. Only a tiny power elite wants to create a North American version of the EU. Only a tiny power elite wants the corporation to replace the nation state as the primary political unit.

Yet rather than mobilize readers on this issue, the authors fall into the same old shrill and patronizing ideological "us verus them" dialectic.

Are we incapable of making a logical argument without using judgmental ideological language? This ideological "conservative versus progressive" dialectic is what has been the undoing of our country for the last 30 years.

Do you people not get it? As long as that tiny power elite keeps us at each others' throats, they can continue to have their way with the greatest republic the world has ever known.

It's time to put the ideology away and focus on the issue. National sovereignty is going to be *the* issue of the 21st century.

If we continue to follow the outdated "right versus left" approach, we're going to watch as our children and grandchildren are sold down the river into a society that measures a human's value in terms of their ability to spend and consume.

I think the authors should issue a written apology for their lack of journalistic responsibility in the construction of this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While the xenophobes go BONKERS for borders,
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 9, 2008 10:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FTAA is right around the corner.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/ftaa/

At this point, the border fences will be there and not there. Get the picture?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NAU? Right On! ('cept maybe a nicer name like Turtle Island)
Posted by: DaBear on Apr 9, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget that corporate-aristocratic-feudal bullshit (SSP)! A meal with too many rich fuckers just gives me gas.

I'll take a continental "state" please with:

• one double helping of a human-rights based Constitution for the continent's inhabitants

• one generous helping of a truly Continental Congress (proportionally represented by bioregionally elected sane people--no RWA, religious fundies, no corporatists or corporados, no aristocrats or those that are fond of such stoopidity)

Bioregional "departments," "states" or "provinces" using real biotic boundaries instead of the politically motivated fuckup idiocy that passes for geopolitical boundaries

• one currency with a participatory economy (hell, Amero has a nice funky ring to it: ironic, mimetic, paradoxical...)

and on the side:

• a continental futbol/soccer league with relegation-promotion qualities so the hometown hero sides can make it to the big show and the spirit of competition and healthy localism has a safe-haven venue. Hell, why not a continental sport-federation with grid-iron, hockey, basketball and baseball too... well maybe not baseball that game is almost as fuckin' stoopid as gridiron.

• a continental maglev transit system so we can all hang-out together

And for the RWAs, white supremacists, aristocrats, nationalist zealots, fundamentalists, corporatists, no soup for you!

[« Reply to this comment] [