The North American Union, Part 1
It is amazingly difficult to find credible information regarding the North American Union, yet the very concept of such an arrangement would have extraordinary impact upon the daily lives of each and every human being in the three nations which are poised to be folded under one socio-economic umbrella. There is no doubt that such a concept is very much an element of globalization.
What will this mean for the United States? What will this mean for Canada? What will this mean for Mexico? And, more importantly, what will this mean for the average citizen of each of these nations?
I intend to run a series exploring these questions, but first we must examine whatever evidence might be available that we are indeed heading in that direction…and why the government is so loathe to discuss this matter with the American public.
To begin, take a look at this video (you’ll need to turn up your volume):
As you can see, it IS being discussed in Congress, although under the auspices of the Agreement on Security and Prosperity, which created the Security and Prosperity Partnership. As Rep. Kaptur points out, the SPP is the successor to NAFTA. So, what is the SPP? Let’s take a look at this…
and this…
Obviously the SPP is quite real, and they’ve been meeting for a number of years. In fact, it appears that the groundwork for this may well have been laid as far back as the Clinton Administration. An interesting White House document dating back to 2006 entitled, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Next Steps,” offers some insight into this process of economic convergence:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060331-1.html
This document is actually the most recent one publicly available at the White House website offering any more information beyond merely an announcement of a meeting between the President and the leaders of the other two nations, the latest one being the meeting in New Orleans.
Given this information, the question I pose to this forum is, quite simply, “What do you think?”
5 Comments »
Leave a reply to michael Cancel reply
RSS
AWCheney's Forum On Immigration 
I spend a lot of time trying to understand the economic benefits shown in history of the trade benefits when transportation hubs are opened between remote and d countres and regional marketing points in history.
1. Trans Siberian railroad
2. Trans US railroad
3. Canal between Yalu (or Yangtze) and Yellow rivers in China
3. C&O canal
4. Panama Canal
5. Invention of the airplane
6. Roman road infrastructure
7. Ports in Carthage
8. US Interstate system
9, European Union
Also contrasted to the isolation of China in the China, the global expansion of the British, Portugese, Dutch, French and Spanish navies.
Generally the wealth of these regions increased in the aftermath of these expansions, but another factor also created war and conflict in these regions whenever the following occurred.
1. The ethnic groups the transportation system joined was not similar with similar political values and moral systems and religious laws
2. The people who were made rich by these expansions oppressed the people made poor by these systems.
3. The political structures of these nations chanfged as a result of the influx of non-native cultures and political groups, creating conflict and war.
The British created the greatest pre-war conditions leading up to WWI and WWII as a result of trade expansion and transportation networks taking wealth from the nations it connected.
The Dutch and portugese took over Africa (except where the Tetse fly cause death in the middle jungles.) and cause wars that are still being fought today.
The US railroad helped to rapidly destroy 500 American Indian nations, and created one culture supreme.
THe Chinese canal put millions into poverty and forced labor, most of which died, and then created internal cultural wars between regions of warlords that evertually revolted and attacked the other regions for its wealth.
The panama canal, suppressed the trade of inter-regional markets and benefited the pockets of US bankers in New York. We went to war many times to protect our South and Central American financial interests and keep the canal open. The Canal hastened the destruction of species from one part of the world to the other as they invaded and took over regional eco-systems.
After every trade growth, there was a corresponding large population growth increase. The result was massive destruction of habitat, a focus on material wealth, creation of large materials and industrial centers thsat created miserable living conditions for its new residents, and the sustainability of the local economy on local “sunlight” only, began to be supportable only by burning fossil fuel dependencies which rapidly depleted local resources, and required the import and “borrowing” of significant energy resouces from other countries (transported by these systems), creating a non-reversable multi-trillion dollar trade deficit and national debt.
Political control of these regions eventually became impossible and they collapsed into regional wars, and warring factions in every one of the “economic” systems created above.
Ignoring local and regional growth to encourage global growth has always in history led to cultural and ethnic wars between these connected transportation systems.
Comment by michael | July 6, 2008 3:43 pm |
We already have highways connecting these points. What they’re doing is creating a mega superhighway system where “trucks from Mexico to Canada” can travel rapidly, with limited impedances…like those annoying border checks.
Comment by AWCheney | July 6, 2008 7:21 pm |
Agree, the difference in “Superhighways” and “controlled” highways, is the magnitude of “un-controlled” population growth along these corridors and the imbalance of wealth a “superhighway” creates between the “ends” of these regions, the “exporter” nation and the wealth collector “nation”. Typically super efficient transportation systems have created a poverty imbalance in the above cases (British, Dutch, Portugese, Chinese and US trades centers with the rest of the world working for low wages and unfair/unequal labor laws, that has resulted in “jealousy of the wealthy and rich, benefiting from these systems and the growth in rebellion by the impoverished, exploited by these systems usually leading to sedition, subversion and overthrow of the governments who created the “superhighways” of trade to the rest of the world. The Superhighway will create a new “poverty” imbalance as free trade rates drive regional price and labor wage differences lower between end point regions and wealth differences higher. Only regional economies seem to be able to bring the impoverished wage scale close to the wealthy wage scale, over a gradual period of border stability, created propserous neighborhoods such as in the US today, using regional trade stability and government labor law intervention. I believe the NAU, will hasten this labor law and wage instability as it artificialy extends borders without extending common law across all trade centers and nations engaged in the trade. Colonialsim is a good model to understand this imbalance in common law application and exploitation of the impoverished with superhighway efficiency and trade imbalance between different monetary systems.
Comment by michael | July 6, 2008 10:32 pm |
Congrats on your new blog Ms, Shake, Rattle & Roll! I am glad to see YOU are on this subject and hope to get caught up soon!I can see you have a lot of research into it 🙂
Peace
Comment by Red Dawn | July 7, 2008 8:11 pm |
Red Dawn!…good to see you!! I’m glad you found me. Actually, I plan an entire series of posts on the North American Union, with other posts on issues related to it. I think you’ll find it interesting, and I’m really trying to thoroughly research it. Keep an eye out! 🙂
Comment by AWCheney | July 8, 2008 2:21 am |