North American Union: Three Amigos Less One?By
Judi McLeod Wednesday, April 23, 2008
If U.S. presidential candidates Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama want to dabble with a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), they’ll find Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper standing in their way.
Harper issued a warning yesterday to future U.S. leaders out to renegotiate the North American free-trade Agreement (NAFTA), warning them that Canada would drive a tougher bargain because of its position as America’s biggest energy supplier.
Those who patriots accuse of planning a European Union styled North American Union (NAU) seem to continue to count on eliminating the borders of Canada, Mexico and the United States.
Harper’s comments throw cold water on NAFTA attacks from wanabees Clinton and Obama, and a monkey wrench at the long suspected NAU. His comments came at the end of a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, where the three leaders were defending NAFTA against the Clinton Barrack attacks.
Asked whether it might not be a bad idea to rethink certain aspects of the deal, Mr. Harper said he was ready for any eventuality, but warned that Canada was in a stronger position than when the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was negotiated during the 1980s.
“We are a secure, stable (energy) supplier. That is of critical importance to the future of the United States,” Mr. Harper told reporters at the end of the North American leaders’ summit known as the Three Amigos. “If we have to look at this kind of an option, I think, quite frankly, we’d be in an even stronger position now than we were 20 years ago, and we’ll be in a stronger position in the future.” (
http://www.theglobeandmail.com, April 23, 2008).
“Mr. Harper said he did not want to reopen NAFTA, but he is not the first Canadian politician to link opening the free-trade deal and energy. International Trade Minister David Emerson did so in February after Mr. Barrack and Ms. Clinton criticized NAFTA. The agreement prohibits Canada from cutting oil exports to the United States during worldwide shortages unless supplies are also cut in Canada.
President Bush reiterated that Canada and Mexico are the greatest suppliers to the United States and that America is grateful for that. He admitted that the United States is paying the price for not stepping up exploration.
Even though the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which spawned it, continue to deny the NAU, plans are still afoot to force Canada, the U.S. and Mexico into one massive borderless entity.
“It (NAU) springs from a process set in motion by President Bush about two years ago, involving what many conservatives see as the surrender of U.S. sovereignty to a trilateral entity that could assume the form of a North American Union, much like the European Union that now dictates to the citizens of 27 European states, “ wrote Cliff Kincaid of the Washington-based Accuracy in Media (AIM). “The Security and Prosperity Partnership was launched in 2005 to ensure continued economic prosperity in Canada, the United States and Mexico, and to increase the security of citizens in all three countries,” says a release from the Canadian government.”
But given that Canadian courts have ruled that suspected terrorists can no longer be held for questioning, and that the U.S. appears headed in the same direction, the SPP has already failed to deliver on one major promise.
Rumors that Harper, who is said to be a strong advocate for Canadian sovereignty, is secretly against the formation of a NAU first surfaced in March of 2007.
To date, politicians and their bureaucrats have been coy about the coming NAU, some even telling reporters that the organization is just another one of those “Internet rumors”.
“They are not ahead of the investigative Cliff Kincaid: “On one level, as I discovered at the conference, much of it stems from NAFTA, which was pushed through Congress by President Clinton, getting majorities in both Houses, and bypassing the treaty process that requires a two-thirds vote in favor in the Senate. Clinton knew that he couldn’t get the votes that a treaty required.” (
www.canadafreepress.com, March 21, 2007).
“President Bush, a supporter of NAFTA, entered the picture on March 23, 2005, when he issued a statement with then-Mexican President Vincent Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and announced the establishment of the SPP. I had reported that the statement was signed by President Bush, but was corrected by a reader who said that, according to the SPP website, it was not. The SPP says, “The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed,” Kincaid wrote.
“Yet, I found a statement issued by then-Prime Minister Martin, in which he declared that “President Bush, President Fox and I signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership…” A transcript of a “press availability” from June 27, 2005, shows Carlos Abascal, the Mexican Secretary of the Interior, saying that, “Our three leaders, President Fox, President Bush and Prime Minister Martin have signed the Security Partnership of North America.”
In yesterday’s meeting Harper proved he was no sitting duck for a renegotiated North American free-trade agreement.
Meanwhile anti-NAU patriots for sovereignty are holding out hope that the so-called Three Amigos are now Three Amigos Less One.
Topic: North American Union: Three Amigos Less One? (Read 1198 times)