Wednesday, April 11, 2007

The SPP: Stealth Coup?

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is an issue that is heating up rapidly among grassroots popular movements as well as the general citizenry - ironically, on the right in the U.S. and on the left in Canada.

The SPP is an agreement signed in March, 2005 by then heads of government of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, George Bush, Paul Martin and Vicente Fox. According to the official U.S. government SPP website, the agreement is not a treaty or trade deal, but a "dialogue."

Documents obtained from the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act state that the SPP is "a broad and ambitious" plan to create "full regulatory harmonization" and "deep integration" of the economies, military, intelligence, laws and regulations of the three nations.

A council of 30 CEOs - 10 to represent each nation - has already been created: the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). The NACC will form policy and "brief" Congress and Parliament.

In the U.S. and Canada, citizens groups are beginning to take notice, and are appalled. The SPP is being viewed by critics, both on the right and the left of the political spectrum, as a serious threat to sovereignty and democracy. All evidence points in this direction. The fact that it is being carried out in very secretive ways, with no Congressional or Parliamentary debate or oversight, only adds to the perception that this is a deeply anti-democratic agenda.

J. Todd Ring

April 11, 2007

For more information on the SPP, here are a few of the best articles and resources available:

INTEGRATE THIS! A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting Deep Integration

* Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense Establishment : Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America

*** ZNet |Economy | Power to the People (In Suits)

Fast-Track to Fascism: The SPP in a Nutshell


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Towing the Line with the Mainstream Media

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."
- Benjamin Franklin

“The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly.”

Noam Chomsky


As Chomsky accurately pointed out – merely stating what should be obvious – the major media set the boundaries of acceptable discussion. They serve the function, among others, of saying in effect, “Thus far, and no further.” To step outside these parameters is thus implicitly portrayed as stepping off the edge of the earth. Beyond these bounds we enter the irrational, lunatic fringe. However, as also should be obvious, the bounds of discussion are extraordinarily narrow. Five corporations control network media in the U.S., six in Canada. They share a common perspective and present an extremely narrow range of views. Major issues are framed within a common lens of spin, omission of certain critical, salient facts, and outright distortion. Other major issues are not covered at all, or buried on page 39, in a minor note, right next to a recipe for oatmeal porridge or some other riveting feature. It should go without saying that if we allow the corporate media to set the parameters of discussion, we are lost.

Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the media.

Noam Chomsky

It is now a matter of public record that the U.S. government has contracted out to Haliburton subsidiary KBR to build detention centers in America. KBR itself announced this in their own press release, stating that the contract is “open-ended” in terms of time-frame and scale. This should be worrisome. We remember that detention centers have been built – and used – before. In the U.S. and Canada during the second world war, the Japanese detention centers left a horrible and grotesque legacy. And of course, we have the chilling memory of the Nazi prison camps. When the U.S. government, already moving rapidly in the direction of fascism, as any sane observer recognizes, starts building detention centers, we should take this as noteworthy. This is newsworthy, or nothing is. But if the major media don’t cover it, then we all feel it is unacceptable to talk about it.

It is now a matter of public record – not theory – that the executive branches of the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments, along with at least three extremely powerful corporate lobby groups, have begun, under the signed agreement called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), what is being called a “dialogue” to create “full regulatory harmonization” and “deep integration” within “Fortress North America” in “the new security environment.” This is a program that is far more broad and ambitious than NAFTA, CAFTA or the FTAA, yet it is being met with almost complete silence by the mainstream media. Are we to then accept that such a major program, which is being carried out without Congressional or Parliamentary oversight or debate, which will redefine the economies, military and security structures, laws, regulations, borders and political process of the three nations, is not fit for public discussion, is not a legitimate topic of debate or dialogue, is beyond the range of acceptable discourse? The answer is, of course - or should be - obvious.

If we concede to the major media setting the bounds of discussion, and thus accept that these are the limits to rational or legitimate dialogue, then we have conceded defeat. Must we accept such narrow and arbitrary terms on the bounds of sane and reasonable discourse? What are we, men and women, or cattle?

“Half the American population no longer reads
newspapers: plainly, they are the clever half.”
- Gore Vidal

“If words were invented to conceal thought,
newspapers are a great improvement of a bad invention.”
- Henry David Thoreau

“I find it so difficult to dispose of the few facts which to me are significant, that I hesitate to burden my attention with those which are insignificant. Such is, for the most part, the news in newspapers and conversation.” - Thoreau

“Trying to be a first-rate reporter on the average American newspaper is like trying to play Bach's St. Matthew Passion on a ukulele.” - Ben Bagdikian


“If you don't want to work, become a reporter. That awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to poorhouse.” - Mark Twain


“Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization.” - G B Shaw


"The average newspaper, especially of the better sort, has the intelligence of a hillbilly evangelist, the courage of a rat, the fairness of a prohibitionist boob-jumper, the information of a high school janitor, the taste of a designer of celluloid valentines, and the honor of a police-station lawyer." - HL Mencken


“If you're not careful the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” - Malcolm X


“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers…[A despotic] government always [keeps] a king of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or what should look like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.”

- Thomas Jefferson, 1785


“I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time.” - Thomas Jefferson


“The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he who’s mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.” - Thomas Jefferson


As my father used to say, if everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you follow? Or more directly, if everyone else is content to eat shit sandwiches, do we have to do the same? Why do we tune into the corporate media at all? Surely we are more intelligent than this. I believe most are. And polls show that the great majority of people have a pretty clear sense of what’s going on; and further more, have a high degree of skepticism about the major media. Why then do we continue to tune in, to eat this stuff up, or to allow the mass media to define the parameters of debate and discussion? I have to guess, or conclude, that it is a matter of group think. Heaven forbid that we deviate from the herd.


“In matters of style, swim with the current;
in matters of principle, stand like a rock.”

- Thomas Jefferson


As every intelligent observer knows, mainstream media in Canada and the U.S. are either corporate owned or corporate dominated, due to dependency on advertising revenues. As such, we cannot be surprised to find a very narrow range of perspective and a remarkable commonality of spin across the mass media, with disinformation, distortion and omission of vital information being the norm.

The independent media in general do an excellent job of broadening the range of discussion and covering issues that are under-reported by the corporate media monopolies, but there are areas where the independent media also fall short. The SPP is one glaring example.

What I’d like to suggest is that we keep the obvious in mind at all times: if we are writers, bloggers, independent journalists or media workers, or for that matter, anyone who is involved with or interested in the actual goings on in our world, we must not allow the mainstream media to set the parameters of legitimate public discourse.

Nor can we allow the mainstream media – the corporate-dominated media – to set the tone. The tone in the mass media is tepid, timid, blasé, and not truly objective at all. The media gets itself worked up into a frenzy in order to vilify the proper enemies, or pronounce the corporate party line, but when it comes to reporting or commenting on the short-comings or failures of business as usual and the party line, the best they can muster is a valium stupor of spiritless, apathetic hand-wringing – and this only when the far more common response of rationalization, justification, spin and denial are not the reaction. Genocide in Africa, the race toward ecological self-destruction, risk of nuclear confrontation over Iran or other conflicts, the institutionalization of war crimes as defined by international law, the legalization and routine, systemic use of torture, the destruction of constitutional rights and liberties: these are just a few examples of subjects that demand more than a luke-warm response; at least, that is, if we are to retain our human decency, if we are to address ourselves to the issues in a sane or humane manner, or if we are to introduce into the debate and discussion any of these qualities.

Call it like it is. Euphemistic, wishy-washy reporting and commentary smacks of either intellectual timidity or simple laziness, as well as moral cowardice. The people I admire most in terms of writers are those who have a marked intelligence, or more simply, a basic clarity of mind, and far more importantly, a deep sense of compassion, combined with a willingness to frankly speak the truth, even when it is unpopular to do so. Chomsky, and even more so, Thoreau, come to mind along with others. What we need to hear more of is people speaking plainly and intelligently, with compassion, and also with spine. Journalism that sparks little more passionate response than three day old porridge is not what we need. The usual skirting of issues and bland hedging, is about as effectual at addressing the issues we face as is making love in a wet suit.

In either case, if we allow the mainstream media to set the parameters of debate, the framing of the issue, the bounds of discussion; or to set the tone of public discourse - then we are lost.

As should be self-evident, the relevant facts and evidence must be brought forth, even if this is outside the bounds of discussion as defined by the dominant corporate-controlled media; and the tone of our dialogue must be at least somewhat more impassioned than what is set as the norm of reasonable discussion by the same dominant media forces. To do otherwise is to lose before beginning.

Effective action, or even simple integrity, can be based only upon truth, and courage to speak the truth. It also requires a willingness to meet the issues of the day with more than a banal and blasé spiritlessness, pretending to objectivity, neutrality or “balance”. We need to break the barriers of the media monopolies, and firstly, within our own minds and discourse.

J. Todd Ring

April 10, 2007


Useful links:


Manufacturing Consent

Necessary Illusions

Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience"

Amazon.com: Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies: Books: Noam Chomsky

Democracy Now!

Free Speech TV

Big Picture TV

oneworld tv<

Project Censored

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Who Owns The Media?"

Your Media: Preserve Freedom, Diversity, Independence

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 09, 2007

An Open Letter to the NDP

Hello,

I would like to tell you why I will not - why I cannot, in good conscience - support the New Democratic Party of Canada at this time, even though there is much in your platform I do support.


A Lack of Vision, and An Absence of Boldness:

As a party that values and seeks to promote justice, fairness and equality, among other noble and democratic goals, the party of Tommy Douglas, the NDP would be the natural choice for me - but for two reasons. First, for at least forty years the NDP has stubbornly clung to a losing strategy of vying for the centre with the Liberals. (The Wobblies and the New Politics Initiative, if I'm remembering the name correctly, tried and failed to correct this timid and strategically foolish tendency.)

If you seek to compete with the Liberals for the centre, you will continue to lose - it is that simple. If the NDP does not present a clear and bold alternative to the current slide into corporate rule - which in reality amounts to a slide into corporate fascism - the NDP will fail to inspire Canadians, and will continue to be a minor party, not a leading party. Currently, the NDP has no clear or compelling vision to present as an alternative to the failed ideology of corporate-led globalization, otherwise known as neoliberalism. This is a vacuum of leadership. And the entire party, not just its official leader, is responsible.

We need a party that presents a clear and bold alternative to the present and accelerating corporate dominance of our society. The NDP currently offers nothing of the sort. It is a party fighting for small victories, while the greater struggle to protect and enhance democracy, human rights, the environment and quality of life for all, is being lost. This approach is akin to fighting a raging forest fire with a garden sprinkler: you are not only losing, you are not even successful in rear-guard action. (The Liberals have an even worse record for compliance with a corporate-led agenda, but that is hardly reassuring. And while the Conservatives are the party for gung-ho get-on-board-with-corporate-rule, the NDP is hardly a serious alternative, as it offers nothing of substance.)

At present, the NDP is fighting a forest fire with a garden sprinkler and running backwards as fast as it can. We are losing ground rapidly, not gaining it. This is worse than useless - it gives a false sense of action. It is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and patting ourselves on the back for all the good work we're doing. This has to stop, or the NDP will become another Tony Blair party - so sold out to compromise that they are virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives. The other two alternatives for the NDP are irrelevance, or new birth. I would sincerely hope for the latter.


Silence on the Most Urgent Issue of the Day: The SPP

The second reservation I have about the NDP is just as great. You have a bold spokesperson with NDP trade critic Peter Julian, along with Dennis Bevington and a few others, but the party is otherwise frighteningly silent on the single greatest issue of the day, and the most urgent issue for Canada at this time: the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the rapidly unfolding deep integration of Canada into a militarized, undemocratic, corporate dominated North American Union. Where are you on this, and why are you so strangely - disturbingly - silent?

(Of course, the Liberals were the party to sign the SPP to begin with, under Paul Martin, and the Conservatives under Stephen Harper are racing to implement this stealth take-over of Canada. But at present at least, the NDP is little better, offering nothing but a yawning chasm of silence on this critical issue of deep integration with the U.S.)

While the NDP focuses on other issues, the SPP is being implemented - quietly, undemocratically, and rapidly. If we do not stop the SPP, we will have no country left, and no democracy - which would mean that we have lost on ALL issues of social or ecological significance.


In Conclusion:

Until the NDP finds its spine, and presents a bold vision, a bold and clear alternative to the continued and rapidly accelerating slide into global corporatocracy; and until the NDP makes the SPP and deep integration with the U.S. a key and core electoral issue, I will not - I cannot in good conscience - support this party.

I hope you will address these issues. I know there are a great number of good people, intelligent people, people of integrity and experience in this party. I hope this good-hearted, intelligent depth of character will come forth now. We need it. God help us if we don't find it - either in the NDP, or more importantly, in ourselves as citizens and human beings.

JTR
Writings of J. Todd Ring
(New WordPress mirror - Blogger seems unreliable)

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

What Must Be Done:
When corporatism and Leninism have both failed

Part Two: Building a World Federation, from the Grassroots Up

The U.N. is failing and in need of fundamental reform - people everywhere are rightly skeptical about its present and future role in the world. Corporate and financial power is clearly out of hand, to say it mildly, and great powers, in the traditional sense of powerful nation states, clearly also have to be reigned in. In this context, it is becoming clear to all that only the global human community, the people of the earth themselves, united in solidarity across our great and wondrous diversity, joined together by some few commonly shared principles, can reign in the unwieldy and anti-democratic, anti-ecological destructive powers which now dominate the earth.

The mood of humanity, if you can make such a broad statement, and I believe one can with a fair degree of accuracy (see the World Economic Forum global poll 2002), is one of deep concern for the future; deep discontent with the present state of global power, economy and relations; deep disillusionment with existing forms of power and institutions; and showing a clear and growing realization of the need to both deepen democracy, and simultaneously build bridges of world solidarity for mutual protection and creative action.

Can humanity agree upon a few basic principles, while allowing for mutual respect of our differences and diversity? I think this is not only a reasonable proposition, but one that has already been demonstrated. We have international agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, ratified by 141 nations, the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, ratified and implemented around the world, the Ottawa Treaty, banning landmines world-wide, ratified by the majority of the world's nations, and the Geneva Convention, to name just a few examples of human agreement and consensus internationally. We have the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, for example, which the vast majority of the world have accepted as a basis for international unity and understanding.

The basic principles of freedom, democracy, equality, peace and sustainability are acceptable to the vast majority of the global village. It is only the rogue financial and corporate powers, along with an unfortunately large number of political elites from many countries around the world, and a relative handful of extremists, who cannot or will not accept these principles as binding. The populace, as a whole, and world-wide, in virtually every nation on earth, already accepts these principles as foundational for any decent human society. Agreement is already there. It is solidarity that is lacking. Alienation and division must be overcome. We already agree on enough to build a better world. It is the unity across diversity that is missing, but that is changing quickly.

Some form of world federalism is needed now. Before this statement can be misunderstood, it must be said that I am not advocating the further institutionalization of hyper-concentrated global power. We do not need any further centralization or concentration of power in the world - in fact, what is needed is a radical decentralization and democratization of social, political and economic power. At the same time, however, it is clear that we need a greater degree of solidarity and cooperation amongst humanity and human communities world wide. We need thus, some form of global federation in which power is democratically held and concentrated at the grassroots level.

After the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle of 1999, just such a grassroots-based global network of solidarity began to emerge. Individuals and popular movements world-wide began to recognize the need to respond to social and environmental issues in a more comprehensive, systematic and globally linked fashion, with greater international solidarity, across all lines of geography, issue-orientation, race, class, gender and religion. Seattle `99 was a watermark, a turning point. Since then, much has been done to create and develop such a decentralized, democratic and popular-based unity amid diversity: a global network of peoples' movements. This phenomenon shows great promise. It may be the only thing that can reverse the trend toward hyper-concentration of global power, the destruction of human rights, freedom and democracy, and the destruction of our home on earth.

The shining star to emerge out of this growth of grassroots global solidarity is the World Social Forum. The WSF is not a body with any direct political or economic power. It is a gathering, a place of networking and bridge-building. It is a place for individuals and popular movements to come together to exchange information and ideas, to discuss and debate, and most importantly, to generate greater solidarity and cooperation among peoples, communities and movements world-wide for the creation of a better world. It is not a centralized power, but a place where decentralized, democratic grassroots constituencies can discuss, come to certain agreements as to shared values and goals, and together, without the need for a centralized authority directing them, in the spirit of equality, freedom and democracy, bring about greater cooperative and effective action for the benefit of humanity and the earth. Noam Chomsky recently remarked that the World Social Forum is presently the most promising phenomenon on the planet.

Along with 1) the pervasive global questioning and challenging of all forms of power in society and all previously held assumptions, 2) the emerging spirit of democratic citizens' empowerment world-wide, 3) the increasing realization by humanity of the interdependent nature of our world, 4) the dawning awareness that unity and diversity are not intrinsically contradictory, but in fact can be mutually enhancing, 5) the rapidly developing and growing global solidarity among diverse peoples, groups, communities and social movements world-wide, and 6) the rapidly unfolding genuine human renaissance which is perhaps unprecedented in its depth as well as its breadth; I would have to agree with professor Chomsky: the World Social Forum is one of the most promising things happening on earth at this time.

Along with the World Social Forum, we clearly also need a renewal and a deepening of democracy world-wide, in individual communities, states, provinces and nations. And, I would say, in order for this to be possible, a federation model, rather than a model of centralized power, needs to be developed or restored: otherwise we have the outer forms of democracy, but the democratic forms hide the real nature of power in society, which is oligarchy.
This needs to be done at the local level - the level of communities - and also at the state/provincial level, the level of the nation-state, and internationally. We need, in sum, a decentralization and democratization of power in society, along with a corresponding increase in global solidarity and cooperation: we need a decentralized and democratic world federation of some form.

It must be noted that it is absolutely critical that not only overt formal political power be decentralized and democratized, linked in a global federation of democratic communities (and perhaps for a time yet, also nation-states), but also economic and cultural power. We must swiftly, peacefully, and absolutely decisively deal with the exisitng hyper-concentrations of media power, and the parallel and even more fundamental hyper-concentrations of economic power - in the hands of banks, financial institutions, large corporations, family dynasties, old boys clubs, and trade agreements and bodies that effectively concentrate global power in the hands of the international investment class (such as the WTO, NAFTA, the FTAA, the SPP and the WEF).

Although their vision and example was imperfect, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine both held a clear and sensible, and in some regards, a noble view of the world as it could be - as can be yet. Thomas Paine, the primary political theorist for the American democratic revolution, along with Jefferson, took his inspiration from the Iroquois Confederacy, not the ancient Greeks, as is commonly believed. The Iroquois Confederacy still offers perhaps the best model for the future of humanity. Five nations lived in peace in a grassroots, community-based federation for mutual protection and prosperity. The people of these nations lived with greater peace, freedom and authentic democracy than almost any other peoples before or since. Jefferson himself admitted that the new American democracy was a pale imitation of the superior, more free and equal, and more democratic form of government which he saw in these native communities. Despite their faults, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, along with the Iroquois Confederacy, offer us now among the best and clearest inspiration for a better world, as we together look to our future on earth, and together face the ominous and simultaneously hopeful trends of the present.

Jefferson saw it clearly: either keep political power decentralized and out of any one group or individual's hands (beware the ostensibly benign oligarchs), or watch tyranny arise, and freedom, democracy, human rights and even decency of life, decay and die. He also saw clearly that if the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of the corporations is not checked, democracy will be overthrown by stealth: consumed and digested by the dominant power of money. He was right on both counts. We are late in heeding his warning, but not too late. There is still time to rescue the dream of democracy from the threats which surround her. There is still time to found a beautiful and just, free and fair world for humanity on earth. It is not to late. But we must act now.

J. Todd Ring,
February 2007

What Must Be Done: When corporatism and Leninism have both failed - part 1

A "Must-Read" Short List: Author's Picks

Overview: Geopolitics 2006-2008

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Fast-Track to Fascism:
The SPP in a nutshell


Few people have even heard of the SPP - the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" - which was signed in March 2005 by Paul Martin, George Bush and Vicente Fox. Sometimes referred to as "NAFTA on steroids", the SPP is a deep integration agenda that is being carried out actively by a small group of powerful corporate CEO's with the aid of several key political elites of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. And it is an agenda that is being carried out and implemented behind the backs of Parliament, Congress, and the people of the three nations. It is a topic that we need to understand. It is an issue with grave implications for democracy, human rights and sovereignty in all three nations. Here is the SPP in a nutshell.

The SPP is supposedly a plan to create prosperity and security, however, the scheme is beneficial only to the biggest corporations, while at the same time entailing a complete integration of the economies, military, laws and regulations of Mexico, the United States and Canada. It is, in effect, the superhighway to a North American Union. But unlike the European Union, where the member nations are of similar size and power, thus allowing for at least the possibility of equal partnership and democracy, the NAU would clearly be dominated by its only member superpower - and that's not Wisconsin or Manitoba we're talking about, of course. Worse, the proposed union, which is being pushed through behind closed doors, is to be dominated, by design, by a council of 30 CEO's, 10 from each nation, representing some of the biggest corporations on the continent.

This most recent step forward by monopoly capitalism is called the North American Competitiveness Council - an appropriately Orwellian name.
It is the establishment of a continent-wide government ruled by a council of 30 CEO's, with the aid and integration of NORTHCOM - the U.S. North American military command - and the Department of Homeland Security. Integrated military command, integrated North American "homeland security" and all of this under the control of an integrated political and economic power - in the hands of 30 CEO's. It's simply business, nothing personal.

This is a horrendous deal that must be stopped. Dissolving our sovereignty with any nation would be a big deal, and one most Canadians would not support. If a stealth maneuver were taking place to merge us with a relatively peaceful, just and benign nation - like say Sweden - were taking place, Canadians would rightly be indignant, and in fact furious. To be witnessing a stealth maneuver to merge Canada with what has now become - by any reasonable definition - a fascist state, is simply beyond words.

Habeas corpus has been suspended in the U.S. In the new America, freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment is now gone. With the signing of the Military Commissions Act on September 16, 2006, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were suspended. Harvard law students have conducted a mock funeral for the U.S. Constitution. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, the hallmark of fascist states, is now part of the legal structure of the U.S. By any reasonable definition, The United States has ceased to be a constitutional democracy. By any reasonable definition, the United States has become a fascist state. Is this the kind of nation we want to form deeper alliances with? Would we wish to be submerged into any other nation, particularly one that has moved so clearly into fascism? The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of 60 years ago, and which has been dominant in U.S. politics since at least 1947, has now finally seized all power in the U.S. The unthinkable has happened in the U.S., and Stephen Harper wants to integrate Canada into this unfolding nightmare.

Aside from these most obvious points, it would be unwise in the extreme to form a deep integration with a nation many times our size both demographically and economically - it would be an unequal and thus, for us at least, undemocratic union.

Beyond this, the giant U.S. economy is a sinking ship. The U.S. dollar is sinking. Central banks around the world are divesting themselves of U.S. currency. And we are going to tie ourselves to a sinking ship?

The U.S. corporate elite want this merger in order to secure access to the biggest oil reserves in the hemisphere - the Canadian tar sands - and in order to secure access to a flood of cheap Mexican labour. It is their hope that they will be able to compete with the rising giant of China by doing so. Oh, and the suspension of basic rights and freedoms is also considered necessary - security from the risk of authentic, functioning democracy breaking out. This is the SPP in a nutshell.

Only the corporate elite support this insane and anti-democratic plan. No-one else wants this. We only have to make known what is happening. The public is being kept in the dark because the business "leaders" know, and have said directly, that it would never fly if it were put through Parliament or Congress. That is our strength. All we need to do is to make this issue known. It will die if exposed to the light of day.

Add to this mix the fact that a council of 30 CEO's, the North American Competitiveness Council, will "brief" Parliament and Congress after decisions have been made, and it is no surprise that this is being done in stealth mode. No-one in their right mind - in any of the three nations - would support this; except of course, the head of the biggest corporations, who are pushing it through for the sake of quarterly profits.

Security for whom? Prosperity for whom? This is a Security and Prosperity Partnership of the corporate elite, by the corporate elite, for the corporate elite. We need to be talking about this. This needs to be a major election issue. This needs to be stopped.


For further information see the links below:

Alternative Media Meeting on the SPP

INTEGRATE THIS! Teach-In

Full implementation of corporate rule via the SPP & NACC continues to be pushed ahead...

North American Union: Time to Re-Focus

Fortress North America: Deep Integration in the New Security Environment

Overview: Geopolitics 2006-2008

Time for Action: Canadian politics and the future of Canada as nation

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 22, 2007


Full implementation of corporate rule via the SPP & NACC continues to be pushed ahead behind closed doors. If you're not sure what the SPP and NACC are, you need to find out. In short, they spell corporate fascism - or corporatism for short:

"Fascism should properly be called corporatism, for it is the merger of business with the state." - Mussolini (a guy who should know)

This is exactly what the SPP and NACC entail. It is the integration not only of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, but more crucially, the dissolution of all three nations' democracies, which are being replaced by one 30-member council of CEO's. Parliament and Congress will be "briefed" after the council of CEO's decides our collective fate. In other words, in the merger of business and the state, it is clearly the business elite that are on top in this consummation.

Sounds unbelievable - but it's happening. It moves us from defacto corporate rule, via a situation of corporate dominance over political processes, the media, culture and the economy, to fully institutionalized and formalized corporate rule. When the full beast is born, it will be nothing less than a fascist state run by the biggest corporations on the continent. Unless you are a big fan of Mussolini, I'd be more than a little concerned.

Fortunately, word is starting to get out. The secret cannot be contained. The back-door putsch will be challenged. This is the beginning of a very great struggle for democracy, for freedom, and for a decent life for all.

Now, let's get this on the election agenda!

There is no single more urgent issue for Canada (or the U.S. or Mexico). You could say that environmental issues, or issues of war and peace, foreign policy, health care or the economy are more urgent issues - but if we allow the SPP and NACC to be fully implemented, we will have zero say in any of these questions or issues, so they'll all be moot. Get it?!

The Security and Prosperity Partnership, signed in March of 2005 by Paul Martin, George Bush and Vicente Fox, has been called "NAFTA on steroids". It would be nice if it was only that bad. But putting aside for a moment the most pressing question about this complete sell-out to corporate rule - the question of whether we prefer fascism to democracy - let's just look at the SPP in light of an expansion of NAFTA, and what that means, for example, for our ability to decide as Canadians what we will do with the world's largest unconventional oil reserves - the tar sands - and our ability to set an independent national energy policy for the sake of environmental sustainability, as well as for the benefit of present and future generations of Canadians.

David Suzuki on the NAFTA trap:
"I think the terrible aspect of Canada is that we don't have a national energy policy that looks to long-term sustainability. We are going to need fossil fuels into the future but we have to develop those resources so we don't use them so rapidly and so we husband them for future generations.

Right now, we're rushing to ship them all to the United States and the free trade agreement says we can't step back.

If we decide, 'oh we're sending too much away, we have to save some for future generations', free trade says we can't do that. We're stuck, basically, providing for the United States. That's what the oil sands project is all about: providing the States with a more dependable source of oil than the Middle East."

And that's what the SPP is all about: securing U.S. corporate access to Canadian tar sands (remember, blood is being spilled for Middle East oil as we speak) and cheap Mexican labour. Prosperity for whom? It is also about "the new security environment." Take a guess what that means.

It is not about keeping terrorists out - the U.S. and Canada already have thousands of miles of unprotected coastline, and "Fortress North America" would not change that. It is about protecting the existing and rapidly concentrating distribution of wealth and power in the hands of the corporate elite - from....the vast majority. Who is the perceived enemy? The populace. The people of Canada, Mexico and the United States. Anyone who is not part of the elite of the business elite, or else is a happy servant of such elites.

"Fortress North America" and "the new security environment" is about locking down power in the face of a rapidly escalating crisis of legitimacy - the kind of crisis of legitimacy that brought down the other evil empire, the Soviet Union and the entire Leninist experiment. Corporate rule (neoliberalism, globalization, corporate monopoly capitalism, or however you prefer to call it) in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and the entire Western world, as well as the broader world, is now in a deep crisis of legitimacy, just as authoritarian Marxist-Leninism was in a deep crisis of legitimacy in 1989.

The objective behind the SPP is to lock down power while it is still possible, while consolidating control over the biggest oil reserves in the hemisphere - the tar sands - and gaining full access to a flood of cheap labour from Mexico. It is the desperate plan of Western corporate powers who see their global dominance being slowly eclipsed by the rising BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and others) and who also see their hold on power in the heartland of the Western empire as frightfully tenuous and under threat by domestic popular discontent. This is why it is a back door putsch: it is coming from a position of weakness. The power elite are scared. If they brought this plan to the light of day, through Congress or Parliament, it wouldn't stand a chance. They know this, and have said so explicitly. It is out of fear and weakness that this is being done in secret, with near total media blackout, behind the backs of Parliament, Congress, and the people of these three nations. If we let it slip through however, it might be more difficult to reverse than we may imagine. And it might be more of a nightmare than we'd care to imagine.

In Canada, it is the Council of Canadians - the grassroots citizen's coalition that killed the MAI before 90% of the populace had even heard of it (there's a sign of hope!) - the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the Canadian Labour Congress who are leading the fight. See their websites for further information, or look up Vive le Canada, or NotAColony.ca. There is a fast-emerging coalition arising to stop this.

Let's stand up now, or learn to live on our knees. We can start by informing ourselves, and by making this a topic that is discussed from coffee shops to churches to websites and living rooms across the continent. We can start by making this the priority issue that it is.


Rice and Chertoff in Ottawa for SPP Ministers Meeting February 23
Find out what they won't be telling you about North American integration.

INTEGRATE THIS! Teach-In - Ottawa, Canada, March 30 - April 1, 2007

INTEGRATE THIS! A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting Deep Integration

Deep Integration

» Opening up the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
By Stuart Trew, The Hill Times (02/19/2007)

* Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense Establishment : Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America

Agenda - North American Forum Sept. 12-14, 2006

Attendees - North American Forum Sept. 12-14, 2006

Fortress North America: Deep Integration in The New Security Environment

North American Union: Time to Re-Focus

Overview: Geopolitics 2006-2008

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 30, 2006

North American Union:

Time to Re-Focus



The progressive and left media have clearly developed into a strong chorus of voices across the Western world, but a pack mentality has in some ways arisen. Group think has emerged - or resurfaced - and with it, internal self-censorship. There are things that are discussed, and there are things that are collectively, unconsciously, deemed to be out of bounds for discussion.

The progressive and left media is largely focused on documenting the litany of evils of this corporate-dominated socio-political and economic order. This is worthwhile and necessary, but off the mark in terms of a primary focus of efforts.

Polls have shown for some time that the vast majority of people in the U.S., Canada and the Western world have lost faith in this economic and political system. Polls repeatedly show that the great majority view the economic system as inherently unfair, the democratic system as hollowed out by the dominance of corporate interests, and the whole affair as being ecologically suicidal to boot. Continuing to convince the general public that the system of corporate monopoly capitalism is not working in their interests, is preaching to the converted.

What is needed now, is not more focus on documenting the evils of a social order dominated by big money, but a rallying cry - a focused effort to rally the great majority to a cause they already believe in: the struggle for a free and just, democratic society, and the end of corporate dominance over politics and the economy. Action is needed. The people are informed. They need now a rallying focus. The crisis of legitimacy is approaching critical mass across the Western world, particularly in the United States. There is an opportunity now for bold vision and bold action.


Democracy vs. Empire

I would suggest that a natural focus for such a move from criticism to proposition, from documenting evils and informing the public to rallying popular movements for justice and social change, would be the unfolding formalization of corporate power in the Americas, vis a vis the North American Union. This is a focal point that can unite the right and the left, can bring together a broad and diverse coalition and united popular movement from across the political spectrum at the level of the grassroots; for almost everyone, at any point on the political spectrum, at the level of the grassroots populace, is overwhelmingly opposed to further concentration of corporate power over our lives, governments and societies, and that is precisely what the NAU is all about.

The defining struggle of the present is not between left and right, liberal or conservative, but between democracy and empire. What we need to agree upon, and what 80 to 90% of the people of the U.S., Canada and Mexico can agree upon, is that democracy is preferable to tyranny. With the rapid back-door implementation of a North American Union underway, bypassing Congress, Parliament, and public debate, the issue at hand is the survival of democracy, as flawed as it may be, or the emergence of what can only be accurately described as corporate fascism.

At the level of the grassroots, both liberals and conservatives, right and left, overwhelmingly agree that democracy is preferable to fascism. This is our rallying point. This is where the crisis of legitimacy is turned into decisive action at a time of great danger, and great opportunity.


The straw man that terrifies

Progressives and the left seem terrified of being branded as “conspiracy theorists.” It is a fear that is unfounded. The political climate has changed. Of course the corporate-owned and corporate-dominated media will still use this straw man. But the vast majority of the people in the Western world now correctly believe that powerful business and political elites meet behind closed doors to discuss, plan and implement policies that serve their own interests, but not those of the general public. With on-going closed door secretive meetings of the WTO and North American Summits, it is pretty hard to deny the reality of this - it would take a determined effort, in fact, to pretend this is not happening. After Seattle (1999) and the Quebec Summit (2001), the closed-door high-level talks of the power elite became well-publicized. It is by now obvious to just about everyone that high level policies are being determined by a powerful corporate elite and their political counterparts, outside the realm of democratic forums, and without public debate or even oversight. And the fact of corporate dominance over the political process is by now undeniable to virtually everyone, across the political spectrum.

In fact, we are now seeing right-wing, conservative Republicans from Texas - about as staunch a group of supporters as the political right would ever wish for, until recently - move to a direct denunciation of, and opposition to, what they are rightly calling the emerging “corporate fascism.” Who would have thought? But it is happening. Traditional conservatives are becoming disgusted by the corruption and anti-democratic trends of what many have called corporate rule.


A basis for unity within diversity

The divide between right and left is narrowing, at least on this core issue: do we live in a democracy or a tyranny, and do we prefer democracy, or do we prefer fascism. Most on the right, as well as the left, are unequivocal about this: we may disagree on a number of important issues, but we can agree on this - we decidedly prefer democracy to corporate-fascist rule.

What the right and left, liberals, conservatives and progressives can agree upon - at least 85% of the population can agree upon, regardless of political persuasion - is that fascism is an abomination, and democracy, however flawed, is infinitely more desirable. With the writing being clearly on the wall, we can see the drift we’re on: we’re heading for full-fledged corporate fascism. The Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Act makes this unthinkable possibility, a present and grim reality. We need to take action now to stop this trend.


The rise of corporate power

This is the obvious trend in the Western world; in the United States in particular, but also in Canada, the U.K. and Europe: we are moving into a fascist order. In terms of economy, the concentration of corporate power has been increasing steadily, and in fact exponentially, over many decades. As most already know, corporate power now overshadows political power and democratic governments - exactly as Jefferson had warned, nearly 200 years ago. We failed to head his warning, and are now paying the price.

As of 2004, the 500 biggest corporations on the planet controlled over USD $20 trillion in annual revenues - approximately three times the U.S. economy. The political leverage of such awesome financial power would be hard to overstate - and is commonly grossly understated.

The corporate giants have been consciously and with great determination consolidating their power and their dominance over political processes and democratic governments for decades. This trend can be dismissed as a conspiracy theory, but such straw man arguments simply evade the obvious reality. This is, as Chomsky put it, an institutional analysis. Our political and economic institutions are intertwined, clearly, and the result of the interplay between monopoly capitalism in the economic realm, and a democratic process trying to stay afloat and maintain its integrity within such a context, is the on-going and increasing dominance of monopoly capital over democratic forums. We should not be surprised at this. In fact, it would be surprising if it were otherwise.


The straw man revisited:

Institutional analysis and an acknowledgement of class

What is being put forward here is a view that has already been accepted as fact by the vast majority of people across the Western world - hence the lack of fear needed about being branded a “conspiracy theorist” - and it is a view that is founded simply upon institutional analysis, an empirical observation of the widely accepted facts, and a recognition of the reality of class in Western societies.

The business and corporate elite are of a class, comprise a class, and act, by and large, as a class. The existence of class in Western societies may be denied by the more “disciplined” academics, but as far as the general public is concerned, it is an obvious fact. Clearly the Bush family dynasty, to pick a random example, has more economic and political power, as well as more wealth and resources at their disposal, than say, a gas station attendant in Austin Texas, or a gas station owner in New Jersey. There is no need to shrink from class analysis - in public or private discussion. Everyone knows that the Western world is a class-based “civilization” (and I use the term loosely).

I am not a Marxist, nor do you have to be a Marxist to recognize that class exists in the Western world, and plays a very major part in what we call political economy, or the way our societies function - or dysfunction. Only the corporate spin-merchants and the deeply indoctrinated can deny the existence and importance of class in the Western world. For everyone else, it is a fact.

As a class, the business elite and the giant corporations they run, have been making concerted and highly conscious efforts to expand and consolidate their power. There may be intense rivalries among the corporate elite and the financiers who control them, but there are some things that, as a class, they all agree upon. What do the big corporations and their financial barons want? Well, we don’t have to guess; it’s pretty obvious. They want maximum profit and maximum shareholder return. What does this mean? It means a drive toward market dominance - ie monopoly, or at least oligopoly - and it means slashing costs. Market dominance is a matter of PR, as well as manipulating governments for preferential treatment wherever possible (big corporations abhor free markets - they insist on government subsidy, protection, and a “playing field” severely tilted in their favour). Slashing costs entails some common goals and values among the business elite: cut labour costs, push down wages, fight and roll back environmental and all other regulations, externalize costs wherever possible and make the public pay for the mess we create. These are common class interests among the business elite. The system we have created allows it and also necessitates it to be so. You don’t find corporations relocating to areas of high labour organization, good wages, strong environmental and labour regulations, and a profitable but clearly delineated business environment. No, you find corporations moving to areas where labour has been crushed or demoralized, where wages are low, where environmental and workplace safety laws are lax or non-existent. Profit drives the beast, and we should not be surprised at the results.

Note that I am not saying that the profit motive is irreconcilable with labour and environmental legislation that protects workers and the earth. The Scandinavian countries have shown that a capitalist economy, while full of fundamental flaws, can be made tolerable at least. I am not advocating, to paraphrase Thoreau, an ideal society at once, but at once a better order for society. Such an order can include for-profit business, but it cannot tolerate monopoly capitalism, nor can it tolerate the take-over of democratic governments by an all-encompassing all-dominating corporate oligarchy. I am not anti-business; I am anti-fascist - and that means, in practical terms, in terms of present day realities, being actively opposed to the corporate take-over of democratically elected governments.


The Historical Context

To do justice to the topic, we must put it into historical perspective, however briefly, as accessibility allows. (Concision has its limitations, but it does widen the potential audience.) For two hundred years popular movements, mainly the labour movement, but others crucially as well, worked very hard to create a more just, equitable, and democratic order of society for the Western world, from the 1700’s through to the 1930’s. When the Great Depression hit, the suffering was so enormous, and the failing of unregulated capitalism so glaring, the entire capitalist order came under increased and serious attack - from within. Popular movements were powerful, and the crisis of legitimacy of the ruling order was real, and imminent. Something had to be done. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his administration understood very well that major compromises had to be made, and had to be made immediately, or revolution may ensue. The business elite of the U.S. as well as across the Western world, were terrified of a socialist revolution. A compromise was worked out. It was called “The New Deal.” It was a purely pragmatic project, a concession to the ordinary working people - the vast majority - by the business elite who, by that time, already dominated the political process as well as the economy, and did not want to lose all power. Wages would go up, a greater share of the wealth - created primarily by the workers themselves of course - would be granted to the ordinary working person, a safety net would be created, and some measure of regulation would be imposed upon corporate capitalism for the protection of the populace and the stability of the economy. This was all by way of concession. It was not a noble and magnanimous expression of brotherly or sisterly love on the part of the ruling class, but a carefully crafted compromise to ensure the continued dominance of the elite business class. As with virtually every other achievement in the struggle to raise real standards of quality of life for the great majority, the initiative and the pressure came from below, from the grassroots and popular movements, with governments and business conceding, reluctantly, only when there was no other choice. In Canada it was the same: adopt “New Deal” policies, or watch the democratic socialist movement take power. The time frame was a little later - 1940’s instead of 1930’s - but the realities and the pragmatic response was the same.

From 1945 until the mid 1970’s “New Deal” programs expanded: social programs and a safety net, including old age security pensions, unemployment insurance, increasing wages, public education, and universal public health care in Canada and virtually all Western nations, with the glaring exception of the United States. Standards of living - real standards, not just GDP - as measured by quality of life, increased along with wages for the vast majority, and the middle class was born. This era of New Deal politics and economics coincided with what has been called the golden age of post-war capitalism. It was a time of unparalleled economic growth, combined with a compromise between business and the working majority. It was a time of decent wages, job security, good social programs, a safety net for all, and generally rising expectations. This is what the baby boomers grew up with, and came to expect. Unfortunately, it was a short-lived bubble.

In 1971 the U.S. unilaterally abolished the gold standard, and the era of globalization began. The power of large corporations had continued to grow rapidly during the previous period, and with the advances in transportation and communications, combined with increased global trade and the dismembering of capital controls, corporations began moving to globalized systems of production and distribution at a much more rapid pace. As production could be moved offshore to regions with lower labour costs and fewer or no regulations, and a more thinly distributed consumer class was emerging in countries around the world, the bargain with the Western middle class was no longer needed. In fact, the middle class itself was no longer needed, neither as producers nor as consumers. The pattern set by Henry Ford - pay your workers well and they can afford to buy your product - was now viewed as obsolete. Production could be moved to Mexico or Indonesia, where labour costs are a fraction of those in the wealthy Western nations. And a concentrated middle class in Europe and North America became unnecessary as well, as a global consumer class was now present, more thinly spread out over the earth. With the middle class now disposable, obsolete as tools of both production and consumption, the bargain of the New Deal compromise could be broken. It was roll-back time. All of the gains of the past 30 to 40 years - in fact, all of the gains of the past 200 years - cut be rolled back, or simply put on the chopping block. Big business was now truly global, and there was no need to compromise with a concentrated middle class in the rich Western nations. The fall of the Soviet Bloc further confirmed this fact. There being no rival system, the business elite could act with impunity, and destroy all gains made by popular movements since 1750. Thus began a new era of corporate monopoly capitalism: the era of intensifying class warfare in the context of corporate globalization - what became known as neoliberalism; or neoconservatism in its other flavour. The age of swashbuckling capitalism was back. It was rape and pillage for all.


Say it like it is:

Global neo-capitalist feudalism and the consolidation of corporate power

With the onset of globalization, capitalism - and Western liberal democracies - entered a new, more feudal era: what has accurately been described as global neo-capitalist feudalism.

In the three decades that we have had corporate globalization, wages have fallen or remained flat while corporate profits have gone through the roof, the gap between rich and poor has widened dramatically, the number of people living in poverty has increased steadily - both globally and within the Western nations; social programs have been eroded, slashed or eliminated, environmental regulation has been rolled back or dismantled, and, most serious of all, the very fabric of democratic societies has been undercut: the corporate powers have launched an assault on democracy; not a frontal assault, which they knew would fail, but an end-run around democratic sovereignty.

For corporate and business elites, and the political elite who serve them, democracy is anathema. For the business and corporate elite, this is easy to understand: when democracies are actually, authentically functioning, they tend to favour the public interest, and the great majority of people want things like decent wages (ie higher labour costs), environmental and workplace safety regulations (ie: cuts into stratospheric profits), social programs like public education and health care, pensions and a safety net (ie: programs that diminish the willingness of the populace to work for nothing, or next to it). In short, a functioning democracy means compromise with the public interest, and a reduction in profits. This is clearly unacceptable to the corporate elite, as they have shown by the record of their actions. For the political elite, when it is not a case of simple shared interests with the elite business class - that is, a financial tie in, or buy in - it is a case of arrogant elitism. “We know best; the masses are not fit to participate in our notion of democracy - they should be passive observers, at best, or better, distracted and uninvolved in the decisions that shape their lives.”

The efforts to consolidate corporate power, and to institutionalize corporate power in Western societies - and globally - has been ongoing for at least three decades. GATT, NAFTA, the WTO and the failed MAI were all expressions of the conscious, highly determined drive by big business to consolidate and institutionalize their dominance over the political process, democratically elected governments, and the world in general. Each of these “trade agreements” - which are much more about ensuring corporate hegemony than about trade - further advanced a common corporate agenda of asphyxiation of and dominance over democratic governments. With each of these, corporate power, and most specifically, the rights of the elite investment class, was enshrined and ensconced to a further level. Under the WTO regime, democratically elected governments cannot decide, for example, that a gasoline additive known to cause brain cancer, will be banned in that country. The attempt by a democratically elected government to pass legislation that protects the health and well-being of its citizens, or even asserts the interests and desires of its citizens, will be rebuked and punished by the WTO regime. In this case, it was the Canadian federal government that naively tried to pass a law that protected Canadian citizens’ health and expressed the desires of the Canadian people. The WTO ruled that the Canadian government was in violation of WTO regulations by legislative action that was “tantamount to expropriation” by affecting “potential future profits.” The Canadian government backed down, and corporate rule held. “Power to the shareholders!” You could almost hear the cry from the rooftops of Wall St., beneath the snort of scotch and the puffing Cuban cigars.

It should not shock us then, when news begins to surface that the North American business elite have been holding back-room meetings with the political elite of the three nations of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to further institutionalize and consolidate their power and their dominance over the political process and society in general. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) which was signed by U.S. President George Bush, then Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin and Mexico’s President Vicente Fox, is just such a back-door putsch. The back-room planning and implementation of a North American Union is set to institutionalize corporate power via the newly created North American Council on Competitiveness (NACC). Under the SPP, “regulatory harmonization” is planned to be completed for the three nations by 2007. Full integration of the economies, military, intelligence, security frameworks, and legislative/regulatory frameworks of the three nations is set to be implemented in full by 2010. The NACC is to be the de facto North American government, consisting of 30 CEOs, 10 from each nation, which will “brief” Parliament and Congress. Anyone who cares about democracy should speak now. This ups the ante dramatically. This is the formalization of corporate rule.


Despair not:

The crisis of legitimacy and doors of opportunity

Lest the discussion of these issues create hand-wringing passivity and despair, it should be noted that the business and political elite of North America are not pursuing such a bold strategy out of a strength, but out of weakness. Yes, the financial barons and big corporations have awesome economic power, and yes this translates into real political power. But the writing is on the wall for this order. Global and national polls show clearly a broad and deep crisis of legitimacy across the Western world and around the globe, for business leaders, politicians, political parties, and in fact, the entire liberal democratic system, which by now, as most understand, is a system of corporate monopoly capitalism. The business and political elite are highly aware of this fact, acutely aware of it. It is with a sense of fear at the inevitable sweep from power that this grand and bold plan is being implemented; not out of confidence, but out of terror and desperation. We simply have to look to the fact that the meetings taking place to orchestrate this greatest of changes any of the three North American countries has seen in approximately 200 years, are being held in secret: the media is not invited or even notified, the public is being kept in the dark as much as possible, and it is being kept away from Congress and Parliament.

The reason the NAU is being drafted and implemented away from public view and outside Congressional or Parliamentary debate is that its authors know full well it would never stand a chance if exposed to democratic debate or public scrutiny. It is the fear of the people that drives such secrecy. It is the fear of loss of power. It is the position of weakness to resort to such deceptive tactics. It is because the people are ultimately far more powerful than any group of elected or unelected elites that these deals are done in private: they would not survive the light of day.

I am not sure on the political climate of Mexico and how the Mexican people would react if they knew their “leader” - Vicente Fox - was quietly negotiating the merger of Mexico with the U.S., but it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans and Canadians do not wish to see their national sovereignty dissolved into a giant continent-wide mega-state. One of the architects of the NAU “grand idea” has stated that it was understood that a direct frontal assault on democracy would fail, hence we have had to go for “an end-run around national sovereignty.” Another has said, “we have a 2 year window of opportunity.” (This coincides with the rest of Bush’ term in office - unless he is impeached before then.) What all of this indicates is a shadowy coup by powerful business elites who are afraid of losing their power. It is a bid to consolidate corporate power while it is still possible. It is an end-game strategy. It is an act of desperation and fear.

We must remember that the protests of Seattle in `99 surprised the business and political elite. They were caught off guard. They had no idea such a powerful coalition or confluence of popular movements was uniting to oppose corporate-led globalization. They were a little shell-shocked.

In 2001, at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, the political and business elite thought they were well-prepared. Big fence, tear gas, thousands of police, water canons. The power elite thought they could deal with the protestors and the dissent by simply putting up a wall.

By early 2002 the World Economic Forum’s global poll had come in. The WEF meeting just two weeks later was reported to be one filled with a mood of dejection and sullenness. The founder and chairman of this elite business planning group essentially admitted defeat. The polls showed a world-wide crisis of legitimacy for the reigning corporate-globalist order. (Liberal democracy is a misnomer, as liberal democracy was destroyed some time ago by corporate monopoly capitalists). It is a crisis of legitimacy that is both broad and deep. The writing seemed to be on the wall at the 2002 WEF meeting in Davos. With public trust in business and political leaders running neck and neck with used car sales men and lawyers, somewhere at the bottom of the legitimacy rankings, it is only a matter of time until the entire corporate-globalist order disintegrates, as its foundations collapse. Somewhere between Seattle 1999 and Davos 2002, the corporate elite lost the global propaganda war; and they know it.

After the Quebec Summit of 2001, a big fence and lots of police began to be insufficient to deal with the growing protests and popular dissent. Increasingly, the meetings of the business and political elite - whether meetings of the WTO, the G-7, or the North American Forum - were held in remote locations, far from the public eye, or on turf that was known to be safe.

By the time we arrive at March 2005, with the signing of the Security and Prosperity Partnership - one of the key steps toward full implementation of a North American Union and the Orwellian-named North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) - we have “the three amigos”, Bush, Fox and Martin, meeting privately in Waco Texas. With the latest round of meetings of the North American Forum, September 12-14, 2006, the media were not even informed of the occurrence of the meeting. It was held in a luxury hotel in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, far from the public eye, and under a total media blackout.

The extreme measures taken to avoid public discussion or parliamentary/congressional debate on the issue, is an indication of the profound weakness of the position of its authors. Sun Tzu knew this very clearly many centuries ago: the Chinese classic, The Art of War, advises that when one’s position is strong and one’s enemy weak, this is the time to attack; when one’s enemy is powerful and one is weak, do not attack, use an indirect approach. By now all the leading strategists for the business elite have read Sun Tzu, but even if they hadn’t, the point is obvious: attack directly if you are strong enough, use subterfuge if you are weak. A bold move is being implemented here; there is no question; but the boldness shows desperation, not strength.

The corporate-globalists have already lost the main battle: the battle for the hearts and minds of the people. They have lost the propaganda war. The crisis of legitimacy that is clearly revealed in global and national polls shows the people to have lost faith in this order. Once the hearts and minds of the people is lost, only force is left as a means of ruling. Hence the emergence of fascism.

But when the people have lost their faith in the ruling order, it is only a matter of time until that order collapses like a house of cards. The Leninists found that out when the Soviet Bloc collapsed. Down went an entire social order. Next is the corporate capitalist order. The people have lost faith. It is time.

This is what the political and business elite fear: a collapse of their house of cards, just as the Soviets experienced. This is why the desperate measures are being taken now to consolidate power - while it is still possible. The tide has turned. This is a desperate end-game bid.

Add to this context the reality of the United States being an empire in decline. The U.S. is now deeply in debt to China and a number of other nations, having gone from being the world’s biggest creditor to the world’s biggest debtor nation (thanks mainly to neo-conservative Republicans under Reagan and Bush 1 and 2). Much of the big money has already left the U.S., has gone to Europe and China. The central banks of Europe, Asia and the Arab nations are moving money out of the U.S. The U.S. dollar is falling, and will continue to fall. The U.S. has to bring in $2.8 billion a day to prop up its economy, in light of a $70 billion a month trade deficit. The smart move for Canada and Mexico now would be to increase ties with Europe, Latin America and other rising economic regions, not tie ourselves to a sinking ship.

The reason for the back door putsch for deep integration is that the U.S. economy is about to melt down: the U.S. is an empire at twilight, and it’s corporate elite want Canadian resources, particularly the tar sands - with one to two million barrels of oil a day - to rescue this sinking ship. Canadian CEOs are on-board, but the Canadian public doesn’t want this, and rightly so.

When the American, Canadian and Mexican people find out what is going on, there will be an outrage that will be heard round the world. The time is now to let the reality of this nefarious plan be known. Delay now may be extremely dangerous. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “There is such a thing as “Too late.” ”


The issue at hand

The central and most pressing issue of the day, at least for people in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and the area of focus we should be concentrating upon, is the question of democracy versus empire. This issue should and can bring together all concerned citizens from across the political spectrum, for while we may have widely divergent opinions and views on many issues, the one thing we can pretty much all agree upon - at least 80-90% of the population in any case - is that authentic democracy is vastly more preferable than corporate aristocracy, or more simply and starkly put, democracy is preferable - in almost any form - to fascism.

With the plans being rapidly implemented - from behind closed doors, under the radar, behind the backs of the public, outside the scrutiny of Congress, Parliament and the democratic process - for a North American Union which will merge the three nations of the U.S., Canada and Mexico into one mega-state - run by and for the biggest corporations on the continent - it is time to sharpen our focus. It is time to stop preaching to the converted, time to stop focusing excessively on documenting the litany of evils of this corporate-dominated order, time to stop trying to convince the people of what they already know and have come to believe - that this order is not serving their interests, nor the interests of the ordinary person or the vast majority - and begin to create a rallying point to channel the deep and broad popular discontent into decisive action, and take the opportunity held within this crisis of legitimacy for corporate globalism, and make of it a new day. The time is now. The danger is real. So too is the opportunity.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership - an “informal understanding” between the leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico - has been on the public record since at least as early as March 2005. Considering the SPP has implications far greater than NAFTA, it is a subject that merits serious attention. To date, virtually all of the mainstream media, as well as the progressive media, have ignored it. The silence is deafening. This has to change. We need to be talking about this. And we need to stop it.


JTR



Further information:


INTEGRATE THIS! A Citizen’s Guide to Fighting Deep Integration

A Conspiracy of Silence: The North American Competitiveness Council Decides the Fate of Canada-U.S. Integration - Behind Closed Doors

* Secret Banff Meeting of CEOs and the Defense Establishment : Militarization and the Deconstruction of North America

*** De Facto North American Government in the Making: "Canadians must take back Canada"

***NDP | Conservatives plan to fast track new limits on Canadian sovereignty

* Lou Dobbs video CNN - The North American Union

video - Across the spectrum: N American Union Highway has Texans up in arms

Fortress North America: Deep Integration in The New Security Environment

* North American Union/Testimony, Publications and Reports - SourceWatch

* Articles on NAU - Canadian Action Party

*** Paul Martin's Big Texas Adventure



The Reality of Class:

Talking about Class in the Wall Street Journal

Class Warfare: Interviews with David Barsamian: Books: Noam Chomsky,David Barsamian


U.S. Faces “Economic Armageddon”:

* The Dollar's Full-System Meltdown

Economic " Armageddon " Predicted

Dollar Catching Asian Flu - Asia Times

Arab central banks sell dollar

As Dollar Plunges, Watch for US Government Bonds Sell -off - DEBKAfile –

The War To Save The U.S. Dollar - Trinicenter.com –

Fears for dollar as central banks sell US assets

BBC NEWS | Business | Is the global economy set for trouble?

Collapse of the Petrodollar Looming

Iranian Oil Bourse Opens for Business: A Final Step Toward US Dollar Collapse & Preemptive Nuclear Strike


Fascism anyone?

*** Habeas Corpus Your words are lies Sir - YouTube - olbermann 10-18-06

*** MSNBC: Olbermann - Bush signs military 6166 act - video

The End of Habeas Corpus and the Belligerent Despot-in-Chief - Ralph Nader

Bush Lone Victory: Defeating the Bill of Rights

The Corporation - video

Fascism watch


An empire at twilight:

Superpower’s global dominance in question

50 Years After Suez, US Hegemony Ebbing Fast

"The United States is Terrified" - Noam Chomsky on Latin America's Move Towards "Independence and Integration"

The Crumbling Empire: Latin America and Asia Breaking Free of Washington's Grip - Noam Chomsky


The crisis of legitimacy:

Global corporate rule is now fragile

Confronting the Empire - Chomsky at the World Social Forum

The Global Crisis of Legitimacy of Liberal Democracy - Social and Economic Policy - Global Policy Forum


Books

Amazon.com: The American Empire And the Fourth World: The Bowl With One Spoon (Mcgill-Queen's Native and Northern Series): Books: Anthony J. Hall

Amazon.ca: Silent Coup : Confronting the Big Business Takeover of Canada: Books: Tony Clarke

Class Warfare: Interviews with David Barsamian: Books: Noam Chomsky,David Barsamian

Amazon.com: The Power Elite: Books: C. Wright Mills,Alan Wolfe

Amazon.com: Escape from Freedom: Books: Erich Fromm

Necessary Illusions; Thought Control in Democratic Societies

Year 501: The Conquest Continues

Stolen Continents: 500 Years of Conquest and Resistance in the Americas: Books: Ronald Wright

Failed States: The Abuse of Power and The Assault on ...

Powers and Prospects

Mutual Aid A Factor of Evolution - Kropotkin - libcom.org library

Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh: Books: Helena Norberg-Hodge

The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy: Books: Murray Bookchin

The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future: Books: Riane Eisler

America's "War on Terrorism" - Chossudovsky

The Globalization of Poverty - Chossudovsky

Profit Over People - excerpts - Noam Chomsky

Globalization and Its Discontents - Joseph Stiglitz - book

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - book

The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community

Amazon.ca: Challenging Corporate Rule: A Workbook for Activists: Books: Tony Clarke,Sarah Dopp

Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power - Books: Kevin Danaher

Amazon.ca: Another World Is Possible: Globalization and Anti-Capitalism: Books: David McNally

Amazon.ca: Earth Democracy : Justice, Sustainability, and Peace: Books: Vandana Shiva

Amazon.ca: Globalization from Below : The Power of Solidarity: Books: Jeremy Brecher,Tim Costello,Brendan Smith

Amazon.ca: All You Can Eat Greed Lust And The Triumph Of The New Capitalism: Books: Linda McQuaig

Amazon.ca: It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet: Books: Linda Mcquaig

The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies: Books: Richard Heinberg

Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World: Books: Richard Heinberg

The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century: Books: James Howard Kunstler

Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil: Books: Catherine Austin Fitts,Michael C. Ruppert

A Short History of Progress: Books: Ronald Wright

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Books: Jared Diamond

From Naked Ape to Superspecies: Books: David Suzuki,Holly Dressel

Good News for a Change: How Everyday People are Helping the Planet: Books: David T. Suzuki,Holly Dressel

Amazon.ca: Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future Within Fortress North America: Books: Maude Barlow

Amazon.ca: The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism: Books: David Orchard

Amazon.ca: Empire: Books: James Laxer

Amazon.ca: Global showdown: How the new activists are fighting global corporate rule: Books: Maude Barlow

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project): Books: Noam Chomsky

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,