Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Toward a More Corporate Union of the Americas?

By Katherine Sciacchitano, Dollars and Sense. Posted February 11, 2008.


Here comes the Security and Prosperity Partnership, but -- what security? whose prosperity?
Advertisement

Which is closer to your vision of North America?

Vision A: Three interdependent countries with vibrant social movements, respect for labor rights, and environmentally sustainable economies anchored in provision of social needs and respect for cultural autonomy?

Or Vision B: An unequal alliance dominated by the United States, complete with pumped up oil and gas production, increasing militarization, corporate transnational planning groups, and guest worker programs to ensure cheap, vulnerable labor?

If your answer is Vision A, there's good news and bad news. The good news is that this past August at a summit of the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico in Montebello, Quebec, labor, environmental and globalization activists braved riot police and tear gas to demand democratic input into North American decision-making. The bad news is that the summit was about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) -- the real-world name of Vision B.

While left activists and researchers in Canada and Mexico have been spreading the word about the SPP for several years, so far in the United States the SPP, which was officially launched in March 2005, has mainly caught the attention of the right wing, which sees it as a stealth plan to impose a European Union-style government on the continent.

The SPP is not a North American version of the European Union. But it is a stealth plan -- one aimed at bypassing the kind of international solidarity that halted the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The European Union emerged after years of public debate and a treaty ratified by member states. By contrast, the SPP is not a treaty and will never be submitted to the U.S., Mexican, or Canadian legislatures. Instead it attempts to reshape the North American political economy by direct use of executive authority. And while the European Union maintains an explicit role for government in addressing inequality within and between countries, the SPP's foundation is an unequal alliance where the United States retains the political and economic trump cards.

Designed to shore up the United States' weakening position as a global hegemon, the SPP's primary goals are to link economic integration of the three countries to U.S. security needs; deepen U.S. access to oil, gas, electricity, and water resources throughout the continent; and to provide a privileged -- and institutionalized -- role for transnational corporations in continental deregulation. The stakes for labor, the environment, and civil liberties in all three countries couldn't be higher. Yet because of the SPP's reliance on executive authority to push the agenda, many of the SPP's initiatives remain virtually invisible, even to many activists.

SPP Basics

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which went into effect in 1994, was designed to enhance the access of transnational capital from the United States to cheap Mexican labor and Canadian natural resources. The SPP deepens these relations and harnesses the so-called war on terror to an expanded U.S.-Mexican-Canadian trade agenda and a lopsided energy grab to secure U.S. access to dwindling continental oil and gas reserves.

As its name implies, the SPP has two basic parts: the Security Agenda and the Prosperity Agenda. Both are rooted in the United States' deteriorating global position, particularly its increased competition for access to global oil and gas reserves and worsening trade balance with China.

With the explicit aim of securing North America from "internal" as well as external threats, the Security Agenda coordinates intelligence activities among the three countries and streamlines the movement of "low risk" goods and people (especially so-called "NAFTA professionals") across borders. It also involves extensive military coordination, much of it focused on protecting energy and transportation infrastructure. (Consolidating a North American military structure no doubt also serves as an offensive hedge against Venezuela's attempt to shape an independent South American energy policy.)

The Prosperity Agenda continues the Security Agenda's focus on energy. World demand is growing as traditional sources from the Middle East, Russia, and South America are becoming less secure; and the resulting price increases and realignment of power threaten a redistribution of wealth and power in favor of the oil and gas producers, many of them in the Global South. The Prosperity Agenda aims first and foremost at consolidating U.S. control over North American energy supplies, first by expanding production in Canada and Mexico, and second by increasing U.S. access to that production by deregulating energy markets. In addition to expanding energy production, Prosperity Agenda activities include a tri-national framework for "minimizing" regulatory "barriers"; special committees on the auto and steel industries; removal of constraints on movement of capital and financial services; and expanded and streamlined cross-border transportation networks -- networks that will facilitate not only trade within the continent, but more outsourcing to Asia.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: spp, corporate globalization, regional integration

Katherine Sciacchitano is a former labor lawyer and organizer. She currently teaches at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, Maryland.


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:
Great Synopsis of the North American Union ... or SPP ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Feb 11, 2008 5:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And thanks to Alternet for publishing this column. I am very disappointed on the lack of comment so far, but I understand it.

People are so beleaguered by the tsunami of corporate and government malfeasance, criminality and corruption that it is just impossible to keep up to speed on everything ... but isn't that by design?

The carnival atmospphere of the primaries have little to do with issues and much to do with hyperbole and obfuscation.

Wouldn't it be nice if the candidates could be asked about their position on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) !

Don't bother to hold your breath, the stench ain't goin' away ...

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

I suggest a rephrase
Posted by: Andrew_S on Feb 11, 2008 7:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since we are basically operated as little feifdoms, why not just call our selves the United Estates of America. Sure fits the gulag and plantation mentality.

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

Toward a More Corporate Union of the Americas?
Posted by: kirktc on Feb 12, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I pick answer B.

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

towards it?
Posted by: davidg on Feb 12, 2008 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It happened long ago. People are just waking up now that Geo II took of the mask. Read the history of foreign interventions. It's the child of the British Imperial state that protected the Royal Niger Co, and the East India Co as their extensions and tentacles...followed by evangelizing....which is happening now by the evangelicals....everywhere. REad Kinzer's "Overthrow" and lots of others. It's been fait accompli for years. Towards it? It's hindsight.

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

» It is a done deal Posted by: billwald
Plan B thank you
Posted by: willyd1962 on Feb 12, 2008 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
plan b thank you

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

» Hello Serf... Posted by: Declan
the bad option unless....
Posted by: siamdave on Feb 12, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- a lot of people start to get out of the box - understanding the box is the first step - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html - many alternet readers are probably grokking this already, but this book is free on the net, you should recommend it to friends who still have their heads - ah - somewhere out of the light.

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

''No truck nor trade with the Yankees!''
Posted by: doubter on Feb 12, 2008 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was the Conservative party's winning slogan in Canada's 1911 federal elections. Now the Conservatives can't wait to sell Canada out. The scary thing is that the Liberals aren't much better. Maybe it's time to hold my nose and vote NDP.

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

North American Union
Posted by: militaryhater on Feb 12, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read more about 'Bush's vision' for control:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965

Also read this:

http://www.jbs.org/nau

The information is out there if you care to look.

The Neo-cons..want us to focus on the 2008 Presidential election, Britney Spears, and other bunk while they fiddle on the sidelines..taking our rights away, our sovereignty etc. Obama, Clinton, McCain all want this to happen. Only Ron Paul is fighting this and would have fought this. See what he is writing about:

http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/93/214/

The Democrats and Republicans 'all' want this to happen. They are rewriting our constitution right before our eyes. The MEDIA beats the drum.

A new currency is being planned:

http://www.amerocurrency.com/

It has always been right under our noses. The Americans rely on the TV to dissiminate the news..internet search..lays out the plans....

Read and be informed! Stop being spoon fed by your local news, national news and The Evil Fox news propaganda channel. Seek and ye shall find. Critically think and there it is. Be informed...Search!

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

» More Ron Paul bs Posted by: yale
What is Our Role?
Posted by: Southern Gal on Feb 12, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can understand how corporations benefit from this agreement. What is in it for the US citizens? Education has become more expensive and there is less financial aid available to send children to college to gain specialized skills. Corporations will still outsource jobs to the cheapest professional labor. The manufacturing jobs will be in Mexico and they will see how low they can go regarding wages and still compete with China. I guess that the rest of us will continue to work in service capacities to serve the very rich and our children will be the cannon fodder for the military machine, as we attempt to gain control of oil, water and other resources around the globe. Not to mention that there will also be the impacts of this agreement on the citizens of Canada and Mexico. The Canadians should talk to us about our "great" private medical system and healthcare with over 40 million uninsured.

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

» RE: What is Our Role? Posted by: darkhorse
The Article Asks Us To Pick Option A or B
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Feb 12, 2008 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But in reality, you won't get to choose. The system will simply be imposed on us by the elites in response to an artificially created economic crisis.

What, did you really think that there was going to be a referendum on the issue? How naive. Unless many more people become informed on this issue and strong measures taken against it, it's a done deal. Where are the national committees protesting the NAU plans? The whole continent is sleepwalking into a massive corporatocracy.

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

Wasn't this issue laughed at?
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Feb 12, 2008 4:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not more then 2 or 3 months ago, he who shall not be named mentioned this issue. Everyone laughed at him.

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

Only 16 replies in one day?
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Feb 12, 2008 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Only 16 replies in one day? An article about vegetarianism gets 300 replies and we're talking here about the destruction of our nation. What gives?

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

You want an alternative
Posted by: anarchofuzz on Feb 13, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anarchism, wiki it.

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

» anarchy?! Posted by: undrgrndgirl
otto
Posted by: otto on Feb 13, 2008 5:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Up here in Canada, Maude Barlow and the grass roots oganization "The Council of Canadians" has been carrying on this fight for years, now especially against the SPP and also a fake movement for trade agreements between provinces that help pave the way for SPP amd the Trade Coridor from Canada thru the States and into Mexico.

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

Q: What's the best we can hope for?
Posted by: zeofredo on Feb 15, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A: A collapse of infrastructure owing to generations of neglect (and willful ignorance)-- courtesy of the dominant power elite.

I'm not saying this WILL happen... it's pretty sad when one wishes for an outcome that is guaranteed to bring hardship and casualties, but it is hopeful in contrast to coating the pill at present, which is more certain to bring chaos and discord of a more violent measure at a decisive moment anyway.

As a Canadian, I almost want to say I'm a victim here, but compared to Mexico and the rest of the Americas I'm closer to the despoiling faction than the passive commons. However, I encourage all who live in North America NOT to use the WE so gratuitously when identifying oneself outside this system of thought. So long as you can back it up with some action of resistance, YOU and I are not WE [THE PEOPLE], as long as WE stands for intrusion and control of other cultures and societies.

I fear, however, that the corporate/private business interests are keenly aware of coming crises and are preparing themselves for major blowback. The only thing that can undermine their actions is that resource issues like potable water and energy disappear more rapidly than what is being forecast, and other calamities owing to environmental abuses will combine to make our current lifestyles obsolete; it will be a traumatic experience for everyone, but it will also be the only way to end (for a short while at least) the unchecked exploitation of human and natural resources that is so essential to the ascendancy of the powerful.

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