BE YOUR OWN LEADER

The Pretext for a North American Homeland Security Perimeter

2011-12-11T15:06:00.001-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

After months of negotiations, the U.S. and Canada have unveiled new trade, regulatory and security initiatives to speed up the flow of goods and people across the border. The joint action plans provide a framework that goes beyond NAFTA and continues where the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) left off. This will take U.S.-Canada integration to the next level and is the pretext for a North American Homeland Security perimeter.

On December 7, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the Beyond the Border Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness Action Plan. The new deal focuses on addressing security threats early, facilitating trade, economic growth and jobs, integrating cross-border law enforcement, as well as improving infrastructure and cyber-security. It will act as a roadmap with different parts being phased in over the next several years. This includes the creation of various pilot projects. Many aspects of the agreement will also depend on the availability of funding from both governments. In addition, the two leaders issued a separate Regulatory Cooperation Council Action Plan that sets out initiatives whereby the U.S. and Canada will seek greater regulatory alignment in the areas of agriculture and food, transportation, environment, health, along with consumer products.

At a Joint News Conference, President Obama declared that, “Canada is key to achieving my goal of doubling American exports and putting folks back to work. And the two important initiatives that we agreed to today will help us do just that.” He went on to say, “we’re agreeing to a series of concrete steps to bring our economies even closer and to improve the security of our citizens.” Obama also added, “we’re going to improve our infrastructure, we’re going to introduce new technologies, we’re going to improve cargo security and screening.” Prime Minister Harper proclaimed that, “These agreements create a new, modern order for a new century. Together, they represent the most significant steps forward in Canada-U.S. cooperation since the North American Free Trade Agreement.” He explained that, “The first agreement merges U.S. and Canadian security concerns with our mutual interest in keeping our border as open as possible to legitimate commerce and travel.” Harper described how, “The second joint initiative will reduce regulatory barriers to trade by streamlining and aligning standards.”

Some of the measures found in the Beyond the Border action plan include conducting joint, integrated threat assessments; improving cooperative law enforcement capacity and national intelligence- and information-sharing; cooperating on research and best practices to prevent and counter homegrown violent extremism; working to jointly prepare for and respond to binational disasters and enhancing cross-border critical infrastructure protection and resilience. Other facets of the deal will work towards adopting an integrated cargo security strategy; implementing entry and exit verification; establishing and verifying the identity of foreign travellers to North America; better aligning Canadian and U.S. programs for low-risk travellers and installing radio frequency identification technology at key border crossings.

As part of the agreement, both countries will, “implement two Next-Generation pilot projects to create integrated teams in areas such as intelligence and criminal investigations, and an intelligence-led uniformed presence between ports of entry.” This will build on past joint law enforcement initiatives such as the Shiprider program and the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams. The Next-Generation pilot projects are scheduled to be deployed by the summer of 2012. In September, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed plans that would allow law enforcement officers to operate on both sides of the border. He announced that, “the creation of ‘NextGen’ teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.” Holder also commented that, “In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative, such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing abilities.”

In his article, How the U.S. blackmailed Canada, Gar Pardy stressed that as part of a North American security zone, “Canadian security institutions will be more closely integrated with those of the United States.” While addressing the Beyond the Border declaration and the subsequent action plan, he highlighted the fact that, “these are not formal treaties or even formal agreements, although there could be greater formality in the future.” Pardy also noted, “Nowhere in the documentation resulting from the two meetings are there suggestions the people of Canada will be provided with detailed information on which judgments can be made on the wisdom of this consensual agreement negotiated in the backrooms of both capitals.” Instead he cautioned that, “the troublesome details implicit in the agreement will be hidden behind the wall of national security.” Pardy argued that in the process, “Canada sold its national security independence in exchange for hoped-for minor changes to American border restrictions.” He concluded that, “It is not an overstatement to suggest the United States blackmailed the government of Canada into making this deal. It was the American way or no way.”

The Council of Canadians have also strongly rejected the new border deal. They have challenged the notion that, “proper privacy protections can be achieved between Canada and the U.S. without significantly diluting stronger Canadian laws and norms.” Citing privacy concerns associated with the U.S. Patriot Act, the organization emphasized that, “the proposed new entry-exit system for travellers needs the greatest scrutiny by Canadian parliamentarians, security and privacy experts.” The Council of Canadians also criticized, “the government for hiding behind a sham public consultation and implying that this should clear the way for implementation of the action plan.” In August, the Conservative government released two reports which summarized online public input received concerning regulatory cooperation, as well as perimeter security and economic competitiveness. While improving the movement of trade and travel was the priority for business groups, many individuals expressed concerns over the loss of sovereignty, along with the protection of personal information.

When it comes to regulatory convergence, Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians agreed that, “Standardization can be a good thing when standards are high,” She conceded, “The problem is standards aren’t higher in the U.S. in many cases.” Barlow also acknowledged that, “Already Health Canada and other agencies consider harmonization with U.S. standards to be a more important consideration than the real safety of our food. This perimeter deal cements that skewed priority list.” There are fears that it could erode any independent Canadian regulatory capacity and weaken existing regulations. Part of the SPP agenda called for improving regulatory cooperation which resulted in Canada raising pesticide limits on fruits and vegetables. Regulatory integration threatens Canadian sovereignty and democracy. Further harmonization with the U.S. could result in Canada losing control over its ability to regulate food safety. This could also lead to a race to the bottom with respect to other regulatory standards.

By all accounts, big business is the winner in the new trade and security perimeter deal. Maude Barlow explained that, “this process has been set up to accommodate one sector of our community and that is big business.” In advance of the action plans being unveiled to the public, business stakeholders were briefed on the specifics. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an organization that lobbies the government on behalf of Canada’s largest corporations has given it their stamp of approval. The U.S. and Canadian Chambers of Commerce also applauded the new vision for border and regulatory cooperation. When it comes to negotiations on the border security agreement, Barlow confirmed that, “the big business community was the only sector at the table with government and guided the process from the beginning.” This was also the case with the now defunct SPP. Big business was a driving force behind the initiative which led to the creation of the North American Competitiveness Council to ensure that corporate interests were being addressed.

In her article, Maude Barlow also warned that when it comes to the perimeter deal, “Canada is essentially giving up policy control in the key areas of privacy, security, immigration and surveillance in order to entice the U.S. to loosen controls at the border.” She stated, “it is likely to lead to a wholesale replacement of Canadian privacy and security standards with American ones, set by Homeland Security.” When it comes to information being collected and stored, Barlow questioned whether it will be, “used as a form of social control, to identify not terrorists, but activists and dissenters of government policy.” She insisted that, “We must call on our government to create a full public and Parliamentary debate before this deal becomes operational.” From the beginning, the whole process has lacked transparency with no congressional or parliamentary oversight. This has drawn comparisons to the SPP which was shrouded in secrecy and fueled by fears over the loss of sovereignty that finally led to its downfall. We can only hope that this latest endeavour will meet the same fate. With the 2012 U.S. election cycle about to get into full swing, the new bilateral deal could get lost in the shuffle.

While the perimeter agreement is being sold as vital to the safety and prosperity of Canadians and Americans alike, there is little doubt that it will mean a tradeoff between sovereignty and security. Any deal which gives the Department of Homeland Security more personal information poses a serious risk to privacy rights. As both countries move forward, perimeter security will be further defined and dominated by American interests. This could force Canada to comply with any new U.S. security measures, regardless of the dangers they may pose to civil liberties. A North American Homeland Security perimeter goes well beyond keeping people safe from any perceived threats. It is a means to secure trade, resources, as well as corporate interests and is a pretext for control over the continent. Ultimately, the U.S. wants the final say on who is allowed to enter and who is allowed to leave.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Perimeter Security and the Consolidation of North America
A North American Security Perimeter Threatens Sovereignty
The Push for a Single Unified North American Regulatory Regime
Advancing U.S.-Canada Economic, Energy and Security Integration

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Image by NAUresistance

Canada and Mexico to Join U.S. in NAFTA of the Pacific

2011-11-28T15:14:00.001-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

At the recent APEC meetings, Canada and Mexico announced their interest in joining the U.S., along with other countries already engaged in negotiations to establish what has been referred to as the NAFTA of the Pacific.

The leaders of the nine countries that are part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) met at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Hawaii and agreed on the broad outlines of a free trade agreement. The current members include the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Peru and Chile. The TPP has been hailed as a, “landmark, 21st-century trade agreement, setting a new standard for global trade and incorporating next-generation issues.” Key features of the TPP are that it would provide comprehensive market access and be a fully regional agreement designed to facilitate the development of production and supply chains. Various working groups have been discussing issues such as financial services, government procurement, intellectual property, investment, rules of origin, telecommunications and trade remedies. The next round of talks will take place in December and there are hopes of concluding negotiations before the end of 2012. Apart from Canada and Mexico, Japan has also expressed interest in being part of the TPP. The door is also open for other countries to join which is why many consider it to be a building block for an Asia-Pacific free trade zone.

Following the APEC forum, President Barack Obama held a bilateral meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Originally, it was scheduled to be a North American Leaders Summit, but Mexican President Felipe Calderon could not attend due to the death of Interior Minister Francisco Blake Mora. According to a Readout by the Press Secretary, the leaders look forward to a rescheduled trilateral summit. During his meeting with Prime Minister Harper, President Obama, “noted the important progress being made on the Beyond the Border and Regulatory Cooperation initiatives.” He invited Harper to Washington in early December where an action plan that would work towards a North American security perimeter could finally be released. Both leaders also discussed the announcement by the State Department to seek additional information regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline project. A final ruling on the pipeline which would carry oil from western Canada to the gulf coast of Texas will not be made until after the November 2012 presidential election. The move has prompted Canada to further diversify its trade ties and shift its focus on the Asia-Pacific region.

The decision by Japan to begin consultations with TPP countries, followed by the news that Canada and Mexico are also seeking to join negotiations, has given the trade agreement a real boost. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk welcomed their interest and stated, “Along with Japan’s similar announcement this week, the desire of these North American nations to consult with TPP partners demonstrates the broadening momentum and dynamism of this ambitious effort toward economic integration across the Pacific.” Minister of International Trade Ed Fast reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to advancing economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region. He acknowledged, “We recognize the TPP as a means to further strengthen those ties and contribute to what promises to become a broadly-based vehicle for economic integration in the region.” The report, Canada, China, and Rising Asia: A Strategic Proposal released in October, recommended joining the TPP as the most efficient way to deepen integration with other Asian economies, providing that the Canadian government reforms the supply management system.

Canada has previously expressed interest in the TPP, but supply management has proven to be stumbling block. The practice which has been in place for decades sets production quotas for dairy, egg and poultry farmers and protects them with import tariffs. In a recent speech, New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser raised questions about Canada’s application to join TPP negotiations. He admitted, “Dairy will be very challenging for Canada. This is a statement of fact. Canada follows a policy that many Governments used to follow but most have moved forward. It is called ‘supply management.’ It is completely inconsistent with tariff elimination.” As far as benchmarks go, Groser confirmed that there are questions that TPP countries will ask when considering new applicants such as whether, “we see clear evidence of a matching commitment to attain a high-quality agreement across all chapters, including the most sensitive matters.” He maintained that, “There is a very strict dress code involved and we are going to be stuffy and old fashioned in enforcing it. When our Leaders said ‘eliminate’ tariffs and other direct barriers to imports, they meant it.” Some have hinted that TPP negotiations could be used to expand NAFTA.

The Conservative government maintains that it will promote and defend Canadian interests, but there are concerns that supply management could be used as a bargaining chip to secure a spot in the TPP. In his article, Is Harper putting dairy and poultry protection on the table in trade talks?, Steven Chase reported that, “A former senior Canadian trade official said expanding trade with Asia is not the Harper government’s only reason for joining the Trans-Pacific talks.” He goes on to say, “John Weekes, Canada’s chief NAFTA negotiator, said Ottawa can’t afford to be left out of talks that appear to be offering signatories a deeper economic relationship with the U.S. than can be found in the North American free-trade agreement.” Weekes is also quoted as saying, “What we’re talking about here – if it really does become what Obama says it will be – is we’re renegotiating NAFTA in the same way we renegotiated the Canada-U.S. FTA.” Another NAFTA-style agreement poses a serious threat to economic sovereignty. There are fears that the U.S. could use the TPP to open up the Canadian telecom market and its banking sector to more foreign financial services.

In his article, We’re neglecting our North American neighbors, Robert Pastor described the TPP as a flawed strategy and stressed that the road to completing an agreement would be long. He explained Canada and Mexico’s decision to join the TPP, “as a defensive measure to ensure that they protect what they gained from NAFTA.” He also stated, “Obama should give priority to forging a seamless market with Canada and Mexico. But for the second time in two years, the North American leaders postponed their summit without setting a new date.” Pastor conceded that, “The three leaders have shown little imagination or even interest in dealing with a continental agenda.” He warned how, “the TPP will divert scarce political capital and attention from North America.” Pastor further emphasized that, “The fastest way to create jobs and double exports is for the three governments to work together on continental plans for transportation, education, and infrastructure.” He also added, “If the TPP’s purpose is to put pressure on China to open its market, that won’t work” and instead suggested, “A reinvigorated North America is more likely to get China’s attention.”

The article, TPP as a Lynchpin of US Anti-China Strategy by Jane Kelsey sheds more light as to the real agenda behind the proposed trade agreement. She acknowledged that it is part of a, “revival of US geopolitical and strategic influence in the Asian region to counter the ascent of China. The US aims to isolate and subordinate China in part through constructing a region-wide legal regime that serves the interests of, and is enforceable by, the US and its corporations.” It is interesting to note that many of the current TPP partners, including new prospective members support U.S. foreign policy initiatives. This ties in nicely with the Obama administration’s plans of expanding alliances and military bases in the Asia-Pacific region in an effort to contain China’s rising power.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
U.S. Economic, Political and Military Expansion in Asia-Pacific
Building Blocks Towards an Asia-Pacific Union
North American Integration and the Ties That Bind
Canada Pursues U.S.-Style Security and Foreign Policy

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

North American Integration and the Ties That Bind

2011-11-07T15:12:00.001-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

After a two year hiatus, the leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico are set to meet for a trilateral summit. While the push for further North American integration continues incrementally, at this time, it is unlikely that discussions will yield any grand new initiatives that involve the participation of all three NAFTA partners. Instead, the meeting could be used to build off of bilateral discussions already underway. This includes negotiations between the U.S. and Canada on a North American Security perimeter deal designed to accelerate the flow of people and goods across the border.

In an article from several months back, Robert Pastor, who has been a leading proponent of continental integration, emphasized that Obama's jobs strategy should be a North American one. He explained how the U.S. can expand trade faster by focusing on its neighbours and also pointed out that few Americans realize just how dependent the U.S. is on Canada and Mexico. In order to facilitate this approach, Pastor recommended, “We should eliminate restrictive ‘rules of origin,’ which add a tax as high as the tariff that was eliminated by NAFTA, and combine, rather than duplicate, customs' forms, personnel and frequent-traveler programs.” He also called on President Obama to, “expand his infrastructure fund to be a North American one, with contributions from all three countries.” Pastor went on to say, “The leaders of each nation should then instruct their transportation ministers to develop a North American plan for transportation and infrastructure that would include another trade corridor from the busiest transit point in Windsor, Ontario, to southern Mexico.” This sounds a lot like plans for a NAFTA superhighway.

In his op-ed, Robert Pastor also stated, “In 2009, the three leaders of North America pledged to meet the next year, but that still hasn't happened. Obama should invite his counterparts to address the full North American agenda, beginning with a strategy to lift the continent's economy and then addressing transportation, immigration, education and borders. The goal should be to forge a North American community.” Pastor may have gotten part of his wish as President Barack Obama will host the North American Leaders Summit in Honolulu, Hawaii on November 13, 2011 which will include the participation of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. The meeting is expected to focus on economic, energy, environmental and security issues. The setting could also provide an excellent opportunity for the U.S. and Canada to release an action plan that stems from bilateral trade and security perimeter talks that were launched back in February. Both countries could also further discuss the pending Keystone XL oil pipeline which would span from western Canada to Texas. President Obama has now indicated that a final decision on the project may not take place until sometime next year.

While the U.S. and Canada have been busy putting the final touches on the proposed Beyond the Border agreement, a series of unwelcome distractions have caused the initiative to lose some of its momentum. In September, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency draft report recommended the use of fencing and other barriers on the northern border. This ties into an assessment from last year by the Government Accountability Office which warned that only a small portion of the Canadian border was under operational control and even went so far as to claim that it posed a greater threat than the southern border. Although the CBP denied that a fence is being considered at this time, it does reveal that in many ways, the U.S. still thinks in terms of a two border policy with the idea of a security perimeter around the U.S. and another one around North America.

The timing of a number of protectionist measures have also proven to be a stumbling block. First, there was the Buy American provision which is included in Obama's jobs creation plan. This was followed by the announcement that Canadian travellers will have to pay a $5.50 tax when they enter the U.S. by air or sea. Not to mention the threat of new tariffs on container cargo entering U.S. ports from Canada. The moves prompted Roland Paris to ask in his article, Is There a Problem in Canada-U.S. Relations? He acknowledged that it is, “noteworthy that several of these irritants have appeared at this time, when Canada and the U.S. are negotiating the terms of a new partnership. We are left with unanswered questions: Is the White House still committed to elaborating and pursuing a renewed agenda of bilateral cooperation?” The protectionist actions go against what both countries are supposedly trying to accomplish. They have proved to be a source of contention and reinforce Canada’s perceived weakness when dealing with its American partner.

In their article, Sad but true: Canada and Mexico have no clout in Washington, Stephen Clarkson and Matto Mildenberger argued that both countries are more valuable to the U.S. economy than most people realize. They pointed out that, “although Canada and Mexico make extraordinarily large contributions to America’s economic strength, homeland security and international effectiveness, they have virtually no influence in Washington’s corridors of power.” One of the reasons given deals with the way, “the U.S. has shaped the governance structures within which continental policy processes play out ‒ including disempowering any institutions that could give the continental periphery a voice in affecting American policies.” When it comes to Canada’s lack of influence, they contend that it centers around its willingness to, “make almost any concession in order to get access to the U.S. market. Their resulting limp bargaining culture causes Ottawa’s negotiators to back off from confrontations, then claim the resulting compromises as victories.” There are fears that the same could happen with negotiations on a perimeter security agreement with the U.S., resulting in Canada giving up more than it gains.

When it comes to foreign policy matters, Clarkson and Mildenberger also noted that even though at times Canada and Mexico have proven to be an essential support for achieving U.S. aims, it still doesn’t translate into political influence. They added, “When it comes to security, Canada’s and Mexico’s land masses are a potential menace, since they could be used by terrorist organizations to infiltrate the United States. But this proximity also turns the Canadian and Mexican governments into Washington’s prime associates in its war on terrorism, as they are in its war on drugs.” In many ways, both of these wars have morphed together and are being used as the pretext for a North American security perimeter. Growing drug violence and insecurity have allowed the U.S. to assume more control over Mexican security priorities and intelligence operations. The Merida Initiative which promotes a perimeter security strategy continues to deepen U.S.-Mexico relations. At some point, Mexico could join the U.S. and Canada as part of a formal, common security perimeter arrangement.

There is no doubt that protectionist measures, along with other factors have put a bit of a damper on the pending U.S.-Canada security perimeter agreement. If the Beyond the Border action plan is not announced by the end of the year, the whole effort could collapse. From the Canadian government’s perspective, it is essential to get some sort of deal done before the election year primaries begin in the U.S. or risk possible failure. Despite all the delays and obstacles, it is believed that the overdue action plan will soon be released. Having said that, it is now expected that it will be more modest than what was initially envisioned and for the time being will avoid some of the more contentious issues. It is also likely to include built-in structures to ensure that things happen on schedule with a list of items that both countries will pursue over the coming years. This will result in a constant implementation process making the move towards a North American security perimeter an incremental one.

When it comes to continental integration, much of the focus has shifted to greater convergence bilaterally which over time could move back to a more trilateral approach. There is an overwhelming sense that one way or another, the U.S. is going to get a North American security perimeter on their own terms, one that its NAFTA partners will have to conform to, whether they like it or not.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
Canada Pursues U.S.-Style Security and Foreign Policy
Perimeter Security and the Future of North American Integration
Expanding U.S.-Mexico Economic and Security Cooperation
Advancing U.S.-Canada Economic, Energy and Security Integration

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Canada Pursues U.S.-Style Security and Foreign Policy

2011-10-11T17:28:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

In the last number of years, there has been a dramatic shift in Canadian security and foreign policy with regards to continental, hemispheric and global issues. While Canada is working with the U.S. on a North American security perimeter deal, there are also efforts to strengthen defense relations with Britain and other allies. Canada has also elevated its status in NATO and is playing a more prominent role in military operations overseas.

Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay recently met with U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to discuss bilateral security cooperation issues. In a news release, Minister Mackay praised the Canada-U.S. partnership as unique and explained, “Our binational command in NORAD, as well as the daily operation between our military and defence teams is a tangible demonstration of how we stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the defence of North America and in addressing common global challenges.” He went on to say, “We are proud to work alongside our U.S. friends in the Americas, in Libya, in Afghanistan, and as transatlantic partners of NATO.” At a press conference following their meeting, Secretary Panetta acknowledged that both countries are looking to improve their bilateral engagement in the Western Hemisphere. He stated, “If we can develop better capabilities and partnerships throughout the hemisphere, that's something that I think both of us consider to be a real step forward in our relationship.” Future plans could also include expanding a security perimeter framework beyond North America.

While addressing North American security efforts during a news conference with Secretary Panetta, Minister Mackay brought up the Permanent Joint Board on Defence (PJBD) which was created in 1940. The PJBD, “is the senior advisory body on continental defence. It is composed of military and diplomatic representatives from both nations.” Over the years, it has, “served as a strategic-level military board charged with considering, in a broad sense, land, sea, air and space issues.” This includes areas concerning, “policy, operations, financial, logistics and other aspects of Canada-U.S. defence relations.” Although the PJBD has been used as an alternate channel of communication, it appears to have once again become more relevant as a venue for bilateral security and military dialogue. In a move which represents its growing importance, President Barack Obama recently appointed former Congressman John Spratt, chairman of the U.S. section of the PJBD. In the coming years, the board could play a significant role in plans for a fully integrated North American security perimeter, as well as in other facets of the evolving Canada-U.S. partnership.

Released in 2008, the Canada First Defence Strategy remains the blueprint for rebuilding a modern military with clearly defined missions and capabilities. This includes increasing Canadian Forces recruitment levels, raising military spending, as well as improving and replacing equipment. The goal is for Canada to, “be a strong and reliable partner in the defence of North America, and project leadership abroad by making meaningful contributions to international security.” It goes on to say that Canadian-U.S., “armed forces will pursue their effective collaboration on operations in North America and abroad. To remain interoperable, we must ensure that key aspects of our equipment and doctrine are compatible.” It also outlines a strategy which will work towards the, “ability to conduct six core missions within Canada, in North America and globally, at times simultaneously.” Besides promoting continental perimeter security, the document lays the foundation for a more aggressive and ambitious foreign policy which increasingly represents U.S., as well as British interests.

In a recent bilateral visit to Canada, British Prime Minister David Cameron met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and addressed a joint session of parliament where he proclaimed, “We are two nations, but under one Queen and united by one set of values.” Both leaders issued a joint declaration entitled A Stronger Partnership for the 21st Century which committed to renewing bilateral relations in areas of prosperity, security and development. They pledged to, “create greater interoperability between our defence forces and deepen cooperation on procurement and capabilities.” This included strengthening cooperation on counter-terrorism issues. They also agreed to, “work toward a reinvigorated Commonwealth.” In conclusion, the leaders stated, “We commit ourselves and our governments to achieve what we have set out in this declaration to collaborate on our commerce, foreign policy, defence, security, development and intelligence relationship.” In a move which some have criticized as a step backwards, Canada has re-established the connection between the monarchy and its military by renaming Maritime Command and Air Command back to the former titles of Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force.

In September, Canada’s Defense Minister Peter MacKay was in Australia and New Zealand for separate meetings to further build bilateral security relations in the Asia-Pacific region. While in Australia, he met with several ministers where, “they discussed defence reform, procurement practices, general Asia-Pacific defence issues, and the transformation of the Australian Defence department.” Minister Mackay, “emphasized the strong military ties between both Australia and Canada and Canada’s ongoing interests in the Asia-Pacific region.” During his trip to New Zealand, Mackay met with his counterpart and discussed, “the state of current defence operations, defence reform and procurement.” The meetings in both countries were, “an opportunity to deepen Canada-Australia and Canada-New Zealand bilateral ties, to discuss military operations and defence transformation, and to exchange views on regional and international matters of operational and strategic importance.” This is part of Canada’s ongoing efforts to further expand its global influence and it could be directed against China who has gained much power in the region.

While in the past Canada has exercised a more independent foreign policy, in many ways, it has now succumbed to the imperialistic aspirations of the U.S. and NATO. The war in Afghanistan and the continued bombing in Libya have demonstrated Canada’s willingness to use military force to advance foreign policy. It appears as if they have also turned back the clock by further embracing the monarchy and renewing its strategic partnership with Britain and the Commonwealth at large. Under the influence of a declining Anglo-American Empire, Canada has shed its peacekeeping image in favor of a more aggressive and militaristic doctrine. In the coming years, Canada will be expected to contribute even more to global security including participation in future U.S.-NATO military operations.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
Perimeter Security and the Consolidation of North America
Afghanistan:Canada Must Pursue a More Independent Foreign Policy
Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties
U.S.-Canada Perimeter Security and an Integrated North American Command

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Image by NAUresistance

U.S.-Canada Perimeter Security and the Consolidation of North America

2011-09-19T17:04:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

The U.S. and Canada are very close to unveiling a North American perimeter security deal that would promote greater integration between both countries. This includes expanding collaboration in areas of law enforcement and intelligence sharing which could dramatically affect sovereignty and privacy rights. While there is a need for more public scrutiny, incrementalism has been used to advance North American integration. In many ways this has kept the agenda under the radar. Much like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a U.S.-Canada perimeter security agreement would represent another step in the consolidation of North America.

During his speech at a recent meeting of northern border states, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told participants that the U.S. and Canada are set to launch a pilot project next year which will allow law enforcement officers to operate on both sides of the border. Holder explained that, “the creation of ‘NextGen’ teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.” He went on to say, “In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative, such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing abilities.” The declaration, Beyond the Border: Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness issued by President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper last February, identified joint law enforcement operations and information sharing as a high priority. There are already examples of what we could expect from a security perimeter as some Canadians have been denied entry into the U.S. after their records of mental illness were shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

While further details of the new joint law enforcement project are not yet available, Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians pointed out that the plans are well advanced. This prompted him to question, “why is Harper consulting with Canadians on a done deal? We haven’t had a chance to yea or nay the perimeter agreement which is expected to be released as an ‘action plan’ within weeks. But a pilot project that legalizes and normalizes US policing activities in Canada is already set to begin next year.” He added that this confirms, “the Harper government will use its limited public consultations earlier this year to move ahead quickly with whatever new cross-border policing and information sharing commitments it wants, regardless of privacy and other concerns.” Last month, the Canadian government released two reports which summarized online public input received concerning regulatory cooperation, as well as perimeter security and economic competitiveness. While improving the movement of goods and people was the priority for business groups, many individuals expressed concerns over the loss of sovereignty, along with the protection of personal information.

On top of announcing plans to create teams of cross-designated officers, Attorney General Eric Holder took time to praise bilateral relations between the two countries, but acknowledged, “there are areas in which the U.S. and Canada can enhance cooperation in criminal investigations and prosecutions. And I believe we must consider how extradition, and mutual legal assistance, processes could be streamlined.” He also stated, “As Canada’s national government considers various anti-crime policies and approaches, we will continue working to implement a comprehensive anti-crime framework.” Does this mean that as part of a security perimeter, Canada would have to change its legal system to better reflect U.S. laws? As the fall session of Parliament gets underway, the Harper government is set to table tough new criminal reform legislation.

In the report entitled Shared Vision or Myopia: The Politics of Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness, former Foreign Service officer Gar Pardy warns that a perimeter security deal with the U.S. could sacrifice Canadians privacy while doing nothing to improve the flow of trade across the border. In his report, Pardy reveals that “The concessions the Americans want is the transfer of enormous amounts of information about Canadians and others about whom Canada collects information. It is evident that to meet such expectations Canadian privacy laws will need to be ignored, violated or weakened.” He also stated that, “The Shared Vision approach essentially promotes the idea that in order to restore the status quo ante implicit in the free trade agreements there have to be large political concessions by Canada that will satisfy American security concerns.” This could explain the Conservative government’s announcement that it will reintroduce anti-terrorism measures which have expired and are on par with sections of the liberty-stripping U.S. Patriot Act. The move is tied to plans for a security perimeter and is aimed more at satisfying U.S. fears.

In his report released by the Rideau Institute, Gar Pardy also warns that, “when Canada–United States privacy protection principles are under bilateral discussion, privacy protection will not be increased. A more likely result is that existing Canadian privacy laws, as flawed as they are, will erode to meet the demands of the United States.” As part of his report, he recommended measures that would better protect privacy rights and encourage transparency. This included all new agreements with the U.S. affecting the privacy rights of Canadians, be reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner. Pardy called for the creation of a single authority to oversee all federal police and security organizations participating in information transfers between both countries. He also recommended a separate treaty that would protect personal information transferred to the U.S. for national security purposes. With regards to a perimeter security deal, Pardy concluded that, “If Canadian concessions on security and privacy rules do result in the lessening of American border restrictions and controls then such results would always be hostage to future events over which Canada has no control.”

It is important to keep in mind that the move towards a North American security perimeter is being done without congressional or parliamentary approval. There is no reason to trust that our governments will strike any kind of balance between security and freedom. That is why it is imperative that we demand more transparency and input. With a joint action plan expected to be released soon, it is my hope that Canadians and Americans will reject any perimeter security deal that reduces privacy rights and further puts our sovereignty at risk.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
The Push for a Single Unified North American Regulatory Regime
U.S. Dictating North American Air Travel Security
Canada-U.S. Deep Integration Agenda Continues Unabated
Advancing U.S.-Canada Economic, Energy and Security Integration

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Advancing U.S.-Canada Economic, Energy and Security Integration

2011-08-29T14:56:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

Image by Darcy St. Amant and NAUresistance

Much has been made about the secretive nature and lack of transparency surrounding efforts by the U.S. and Canada to create a North American security perimeter. With several high-level meetings in the last month, not to mention all the behind the scenes negotiations, it is expected that an action plan will be unveiled at some point in September. From a U.S. perspective, it is security which is driving the agenda, while on the Canadian side, facilitating trade and easing the flow of goods across the border is the focal point. Any deal reached will build off of past initiatives and be used to advance economic, energy and security integration between the two countries.

During a bilateral meeting in early August, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird discussed issues pertaining to the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere. Also high on the agenda was U.S.- Canada relations. This included the declaration, Beyond the Border: Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness issued by U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper back in February of this year. At a news conference following her meeting with Minister Baird, Secretary Clinton stressed that, “it’s critical that we ensure our border remains a safe, vibrant connector of people, trade, and energy. And today, the minister and I discussed other ways to expand trade and investment; for example, by reducing unnecessary regulations.” It is interesting that Clinton brought up energy as this is also an intrical part of North American integration which is being further advanced through the U.S.-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue, as well as other initiatives.

Another issue that came up during Clinton and Baird’s meeting was the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. If approved, it would carry oil sands crude from the province of Alberta and pass through the U.S. states of Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas to delivery points in Oklahoma and Texas, at the Gulf of Mexico. While addressing a question at a joint news conference about delays on coming to a decision on the pipeline, Secretary Clinton said, “We are leaving no stone unturned in this process and we expect to make a decision on the permit before the end of this year.” Several months back, the Environmental Protection Agency expressed concerns about environmental impacts associated with the project, as well as the level of analysis and information being provided. With the State Department’s recent release of its Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Keystone XL pipeline has moved one step closer to a final decision. The review period will now go, “beyond environmental impact, taking into account economic, energy security, (and) foreign policy.” While there continues to be vocal opposition to the project, it is being touted as important for future U.S. energy security.

In May of this year, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a series of hearings which among other things, examined legislation concerning the North American-Made Energy Security Act. The bill called on, “the President to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.” With regards to oil consumption, it acknowledged that, “While a significant portion of imports are derived from allies such as Canada and Mexico, the United States remains vulnerable to substantial supply disruptions created by geopolitical tumult in major producing nations.” It goes on to say. “The development and delivery of oil and gas from Canada to the United States is in the national interest of the United States.” The bill also stated, “Continued development of North American energy resources, including Canadian oil, increases domestic refiners’ access to stable and reliable sources of crude and improves certainty of fuel supply for the Department of Defense.” In other words, more Canadian oil is needed to fuel the U.S. war machine. This all ties in with the perimeter security deal and further removing trade barriers. It is part of U.S. efforts to secure more access and control of Canadian resources.

The Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) was created at the same time as President Obama and Prime Minister Harper signed the Beyond the Border declaration. The RCC aims to further advance regulatory harmonization in a wide range of areas. While the border security and regulatory cooperation discussions are separate, they do go hand in hand. In June, the RCC held its first meeting which centered around the development of a joint action plan and the creation of working groups in key sectors. The Terms of Reference for the RCC establishes the mandate and principles by which it will carry forth. When an action plan is completed it, “will outline activities for a period of up to two years. At the end of the two-year period, Canada and the United States will review the work of the RCC and consider the adoption of a new Action Plan.” While this is a bilateral initiative, “The United States and Canada will seek, to the extent possible, to coordinate the RCC’s activities with the work of the U.S.-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council when the three governments identify regulatory issues of common interest in North America.” At some point, these dual-bilateral councils could come together to form a single continental regulatory body.

On August 15, 2011, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano met with Canada’s Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, “to discuss the ongoing partnership between the United States and Canada to work collaboratively on our shared vision for perimeter security and strengthen information sharing to better combat cross-border crime, while expediting legitimate trade and travel.” The bilateral meeting was an opportunity to review progress being made on an action plan that is being developed by the Beyond the Border Working Group. The Toronto Star reported that Napolitano and Toews also discussed increasing joint border operations such as the Shiprider program which allows law enforcement officials from both countries to operate together. Secretary Napolitano explained. “We’re looking at expanding that kind of basic concept to other areas where we can do more by way of joint law enforcement operation, intelligence gathering and … joint policing.” This would also further build off of the Integrated Border Enforcement Team Program, a bi-national initiative which is comprised of both Canadian and American law enforcement agencies. Eventually, you could see the creation of a joint U.S.-Canada organization managing the border.

Following his meeting with Secretary Napolitano, Minister Towes also announced that Prime Minister Harper and U.S. President Obama will meet in early fall where they will be updated and provide further directions on plans for a North American security perimeter. There are fears that any deal reached could be lopsided with Canada giving up more than it gains. Over the last number of years, Canada has already enacted many U.S. security measures. As part of a continental security perimeter arrangement, Canada could be forced to comply with any new U.S. requirements, regardless of the risks they may pose to privacy and civil liberties.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
A North American Security Perimeter Threatens Sovereignty
Towards a North American Energy Corridor
Indoctrinating a New Generation to Think North American
U.S.-Canada Perimeter Security and an Integrated North American Command

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

U.S.-Canada Perimeter Security and an Integrated North American Command

2011-06-07T16:11:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

While few details have emerged surrounding talks between the U.S. and Canada on a North American security perimeter, there is little doubt that deeper military integration between both countries will play an important part of any such deal. Plans for a common security perimeter have renewed calls to expand the NORAD bilateral air defense model to include ground and naval forces. There are also efforts to increase security cooperation in the Arctic and further integrate military command structures.

As part of the Tri Command Vision, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), and Canada Command (Canada COM) are working closer together in the defense and security of North America. Moving forward, the Tri Command strategic goals are to, “Improve unity of effort with each other and with our respective mission partners; develop a culture of continuous collaboration and cooperation in planning, execution, training, information management, and innovation; enhance intelligence and information sharing and fusion.” In order to better achieve these objectives, “The Commands shall develop and share comprehensive, situational awareness and a common operating picture, and must strive to interact seamlessly with each other and with our respective civil authorities, non-governmental organizations and other mission partners.” The Tri Command is part of efforts to merge the three commands into one.

In his report, 'Now for the Hard Part': A User's Guide to Renewing the Canadian-American Partnership, Colin Robertson, Vice President and Senior Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute outlines a plan of action for future bilateral relations. With respects to what a common security perimeter deal might look like, he proposed, “Start by extending to our land and sea environments the interoperability that our Air Force already enjoys through NORAD. It will require our Forces in Canada Command to match their current crossservice ‘jointness’ with those of American Forces employed in Northern Command.” Robertson added, “A security perimeter will also go some distance to resolving the remaining disputes and the shared challenges around stewardship, sovereignty and surveillance of the North West Passage and the activities of foreign ships and submarines in Arctic waters.” In a prelude to what joint security in the Arctic might look like, last year's Operation Nanook, an annual Canadian Forces sovereignty exercise included military participation from the U.S. and Denmark.

In their report, From Vision to Action: Advancing the Canada – United States Partnership, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) issued a wide range of proposals as part of the public consultation process regarding negotiations on a trade and perimeter security agreement. This included recommendations concerning NORAD, as well as shared Arctic security. In the section titled, extending the NORAD model of bilateral engagement, the CCCE emphasized that, “Canada and the United States should extend existing bi-national air perimeter defense arrangements under the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to incorporate what is already an increasing maritime interoperability.” As part of strengthening the northern security perimeter, the CCCE explained, “The Canadian Governments Northern Strategy recognizes that the United States is Canada’s ‘premier partner’ in the Arctic. We welcome the commitment to work together on a common security agenda for the North.” Both countries are moving towards merging their Arctic foreign policies and further adopting a North American approach.

In April of this year, the U.S. Department of Defense released the Unified Command Plan 2011 which updated, “geographic areas of responsibility for commanders of combatant commands.” The adjustment brought about, “Shifting areas of responsibilities boundaries in the Arctic region to leverage long-standing relationships and improve unity of effort. As a result of this realignment, responsibility for the Arctic region is now shared between USEUCOM and USNORTHCOM.” This change to the Unified Command Plan reflects the growing importance of the Arctic. With the move, USNORTHCOM has been given the responsibility to advocate for Arctic capabilities. This is significant considering its partnership with Canada COM, as well as NORAD and will facilitate with the development of an integrated Arctic security framework.

In a posting on his Commander’s Blog, Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., commander of USNORTHCOM and NORAD addressed some of the challenges the U.S. faces in the Arctic. He confirmed that the region is becoming one of USNORTHCOM’s most important with its areas of responsibility now expanded to include the North Pole and the Bering Strait. Winnefeld stated, “In close coordination with the Commander of USEUCOM, our interagency partners and our close Canadian partners, we will work to gain an understanding of our gaps in this unique and austere environment and identify future capabilities and requirements.” He went on to say, “Our responsibility in the Arctic is a recognition of our close, enduring and vital relationship with Canada Command and the U.S. Coast Guard.” During a bilateral meeting earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Canadian Minister of National Defense Peter MacKay discussed the need to further strengthen the U.S.-Canada defense relationship. This included expanding cooperation in the Arctic and deepening coordinated contributions to global security.

Increasingly, the Canadian government’s foreign policy is becoming more aggressive as it further embraces the U.S. pro-war agenda. Military spending is at its highest point since the second World War. There are reports that Canadian Forces are looking to establish bases overseas. In an effort to gain more influence in Washington and elevate its status in NATO, Canada has taken on a key role in military operations in Libya. It has extended its mission in Afghanistan which has transitioned from a combat role to a training capacity. There are also growing concerns over its decision to purchase 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets which is tied to plans for a North American security perimeter.

The end results of a fully integrated continental security perimeter could sacrifice what is left of Canadian sovereignty and independence. This could bring its military, security and foreign policy under the umbrella of a single, U.S.-dominated North American Command.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
Future U.S.-Canada Joint Arctic Security and Control
NATO Arctic Security and Canadian Sovereignty in the Far North
Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties
North American Perimeter Security and the Militarization of the Northern Border

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Image by NAUresistance

Indoctrinating a New Generation to Think North American

2011-05-25T14:58:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

Recent WikiLeaks documents confirm what some of us have been warning about for years, that plans for a North American Union dismissed by many as a conspiracy theory are indeed real. With Canada and the U.S. pursuing a trade and security perimeter agreement which could later include Mexico, it has once again highlighted the whole process of North American integration. This deep-rooted agenda has permeated our schools, universities and other learning institutions. Through various initiatives, the future leaders of tomorrow are being indoctrinated to view themselves as North American citizens as opposed to Canadians, Mexicans or Americans.

In 2005, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) a Montreal based think tank pushing for closer continental ties organized the Triumvirate, a North American Model Legislature which meets once a year. The exercise brings together university students from Canada, Mexico and the U.S. with participants assigned the roles of legislators, journalists or lobbyists. Over the years, the mock parliament has debated and drafted resolutions concerning trade corridors, consolidating North American governance, immigration, NAFTA’s Chapter 11, along with the creation of a continental investment fund and a customs union. Many of the issues discussed mirror plans for deeper integration. In a press release from the first Triumvirate, NAFI proclaimed that a North American Parliament is Born. With efforts to establish a common security perimeter, future steps towards political union could bring about the creation of an actual North American Assembly made up of representatives from all three countries. This could also include the adoption of a continental charter of rights.

The Triumvirate 2011 will be held at Arizona State University - Tempe Campus from May 29 to June 3. The objectives of the event include, “To allow participants to familiarize themselves with the functioning of democratic institutions, as well as North American political, economic, environmental and social realities; to develop the participants’ sense of belonging to North America (and) to increase intercultural exchanges and promote the creation of academia networks.” This year’s delegates will address topics such as freight transportation infrastructure, fostering green building practices, as well as North American guest worker programs. The model legislature is seen as an opportunity for students to better understand the political process and the challenges facing the continent. Through the whole proceedings, participants are encouraged to view North America as a single entity.

In an article from several years back, Steve Watson, writer and editor for Infowars.net and Prisonplanet.com described the mock parliament exercise as, “another example of an overarching movement on behalf of globalist business leaders and politicians to merge the three nations of North America into an EU like federation.” He added, “Integration meetings such as the NAFI Triumvirate are simulations of the exact practices currently being undertaken by the SPP and its offshoot organizations. The NAFI Triumvirate is designed to familiarize ‘future Canadian, American and Mexican leaders’ with the processes involved in such practices.” Watson also pointed out that missing from the whole activity is any simulated opposition to the agenda being presented. While the Triumvirate does promote a sense of cooperation, its lasting influence is instilling participants with the importance of thinking North American.

The 2005 Council on Foreign Relations report, Building a North American Community has been used as a blueprint for deep continental integration. Many of its recommendations became part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and continue today with plans for a North American security perimeter. The policy paper also advocated the creation of a network of centers for North American studies. It proposed that, “the three governments open a competition and provide grants to universities in each of the three countries to promote courses, education and research on North America and assist elementary and secondary schools in teaching about North America.” In addition, the report recommended developing, “teacher exchange training programs for elementary and secondary school teachers. This would assist in removing language barriers and give some students a greater sense of a North American identity.”

In his article The Future of North America, Robert Pastor, one of the leading proponents of continental integration proclaimed, “To educate a new generation of students to think North American, each country should begin by supporting a dozen centers for North American studies. Each center should educate students, undertake research, and foster exchanges with other North American universities for both students and faculty.” The Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, D.C., “was established to educate a new generation of students, to promote policy debate among the governments and the public, and to undertake research on ideas for a continental future.” Arizona State University also founded the North American Center for Transborder Studies whose vision is, “to promote a safer, more prosperous, more competitive, more cooperative, and more sustainable North American region.” These various learning institutions, along with other initiatives are part of the ongoing efforts to further condition and train a new generation into accepting a North American consciousness.

The ideology of globalization is deeply embedded in the corporate structure, mass media, government, as well as in the whole educational system. Together, they are working to shape the minds of the next generation. Students at all levels are being indoctrinated to conform to universal values and standards. Under a new global order, there is no room for sovereignty or individuality.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
The Push for a Single Unified North American Regulatory Regime
Perimeter Security and the Future of North American Integration
Towards a North American Security Perimeter
U.S. Dictating North American Air Travel Security

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

*This article by Dana Gabriel has been updated from one that he wrote in February of 2010.

The Push for a Single Unified North American Regulatory Regime

2011-05-17T14:39:00.001-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

It was surprising that bilateral relations with the U.S. did not play a more prominent role during the recent Canadian election considering that both countries are pursuing a trade and security agreement. In fact, the issue did not really surface until the dying days of the campaign. After winning a much coveted majority government, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are moving ahead quickly with perimeter security and regulatory harmonization negotiations. NAFTA and the defunct Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) both addressed issues such as regulatory cooperation. The push for a single unified North American business-friendly regulatory regime continues on different fronts.

In the final week of the Canadian election campaign, consumer advocate and four-time candidate for President of the United States, Ralph Nader warned about Canada-U.S. deep integration. In an open letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he raised concerns over the lack of transparency regarding talks between the two countries on a trade and border security deal. Nader cautioned that a, “North American Security Perimeter Agreement will wrap many Canadian concerns — your Arctic, water, energy, anti-monopoly and foreign investment reviews — in a bi-national security blanket.” He added, “The corporatist lobbies and what President Eisenhower warned Americans about in his farewell address 50 years ago — ‘the military-industrial complex’ — will favour this lucrative and anti-democratic initiative.” Nader also explained in his letter to Harper, that, “Canada’s prudent bank regulation prevented a Wall Street style collapse of your economy.” North American deep integration is a corporate led agenda designed to foster privatization and deregulation.

With just days left before the election on May 2, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that a re-elected Conservative government would move forward on the Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness signed with U.S. President Barack Obama back in February of this year. The deal would help promote trade while strengthening security and regulatory cooperation between both countries. Harper vowed that the agreement is critical for Canadian jobs and economic growth. He reaffirmed plans to cut regulatory barriers to cross-border trade through the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) which is a component of the Beyond the Border declaration. Following Harper’s election victory, President Obama phoned to congratulate him and at the same time renewed his commitment to the proposed perimeter security deal, as well as the RCC. Both leaders appear eager to complete an agreement before the 2012 U.S. election cycle gets fully underway.

On February 4, 2011, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper addressed ways to coordinate and harmonize regulations in order to ease red tape for businesses that do trade on both sides of the border. They announced the creation of the U.S.-Canada RCC which will, “promote economic growth, job creation, and benefits to our consumers and businesses through increased regulatory transparency and coordination.” According to a joint statement, the leaders, “are committed to working through the RCC to provide early notice of regulations with potential effects across our shared border, to strengthen the analytic basis of regulations, and to help make regulations more compatible.” Both countries will also, “work through the RCC to determine sectors on which to focus its work that are characterized by high levels of integration, significant growth potential, and rapidly evolving technologies.” There are fears that the RCC could erode any independent Canadian regulatory capacity and weaken existing regulations. This would lead to a race to the bottom with respect to regulatory standards.

In May of 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon directed the creation of the High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC). In March of this year, the leaders laid out specific goals for the HLRCC. This included linking regulatory cooperation to improve border-crossing and customs procedures, increasing regulatory transparency, as well as making regulations more compatible and simple. The U.S. and Mexico will also focus on increasing technical cooperation and improving the analysis of regulations. The HLRCC has similar goals to the U.S.-Canada RCC. At some point, these dual-bilateral initiatives could come together to form a single continental regulatory model.

This year’s NAFTA Free Trade Commission meeting identified regulatory cooperation as a top priority. Part of the SPP prosperity agenda also called for improving regulatory cooperation. In 2007, Canada, Mexico and the U. S. announced regulatory cooperation in the area of chemicals.This later resulted in Canada raising pesticide limits on fruits and vegetables as part of efforts to harmonize rules with those of the United States. Regulatory integration threatens Canadian sovereignty and democracy. Further harmonization with the U.S. could result in Canada losing control over its ability to regulate food safety.

With the Canadian election now over, the Conservative government has resumed public consultation on the perimeter security deal with the U.S. and has extended the comment period until June 3, 2011. While the measure is open to all Canadians, it will be input from the business community that will be given the most attention. A report summarizing the findings will be published at a later date and will help shape an action plan that is expected to be released at some point this summer. Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce extended its request for public comments concerning regulatory cooperation activities. The submissions collected from business groups in the U.S. will serve as a basis for bilateral and trilateral talks with Canada and Mexico. This includes discussions with the HLRCC and the RCC. It is not hard to imagine that the U.S. will dominate both of these regulatory councils. Under the guise of improving the flow of travel and trade across the border, big business seeks to further control the rules and regulations that govern us.

The proposed Canada-U.S. trade and security perimeter agreement supports the process of deregulation. This new bilateral undertaking is being sold as vital to the safety and prosperity of both countries. A North American security perimeter goes well beyond keeping the U.S. safe from any perceived threats. It is a means to secure trade, resources and corporate interests. Much like the whole deep integration agenda, regulatory harmonization is taking incremental steps with the goal of achieving a single unified North American regulatory regime.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
Canada-U.S. Deep Integration Agenda Continues Unabated
A North American Security Perimeter Threatens Sovereignty
North American Integration Back on the Front Burner‏‏
North American Perimeter Security and the Militarization of the Northern Border

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

North American Perimeter Security and the Militarization of the Northern Border

2011-04-26T14:44:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

With the release of a U.S. Congressional report that found only a small fraction of the border with Canada was being adequately monitored, there is now more focus being placed on the northern border. As a result of increased scrutiny, there are efforts to militarize and expand surveillance on the Canada-U.S. border. The new found attention is also attributed to a proposed trade and security perimeter agreement between the two countries which promotes a shared approach to border management.

A report released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in February of this year, found that a substantial portion of the northern border lacked any effective monitoring and surveillance. It concluded that only 32 of the 4,000-mile border was under operational control. The findings were largely based on failures to better coordinate border cooperation and information sharing among the various agencies. A Press Release by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security stated that according to the study, “the risk of terrorist activity across the northern border is higher than across the southern border because there are active Islamist extremist groups in Canada that are not in Mexico, it is easier to cross the northern border because it is twice as long as the southern border, and DHS has a fraction of the law enforcement officers and surveillance assets on the northern border than it has in the south.” It went on to say, “The border with Canada is also dotted with large population centers and criss-crossed by numerous highways and roads, making it harder to detect illegal activities amid the large volume of legitimate trade and travel between Canada and the U.S. that is so important to both countries.”

There are many who would argue that not enough is being done to secure the southern border and with drug violence in Mexico showing no signs of letting up, somehow we are to believe that the northern border is now more dangerous. This appears to be another attempt to portray Canada as a terrorist haven. Despite what one might think really happened on 9/11, some have perpetuated the myth that the terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada reinforcing the belief that the northern border is not secure enough. It is interesting to note that the GAO report was made public just days before U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued the declaration, Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness. The agreement will work towards establishing a North American security perimeter and will focus on easing travel and trade, increasing information sharing, as well as further integrating cross-border law enforcement operations.

Following the GAO report which identified security vulnerabilities along the northern border, a group of U.S. Senators from states that border Canada issued a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano. The Senators were urging the two federal agencies, “to further cooperate in combating the increased rate of drug smuggling across our northern border by deploying any and all available military radar technology to uncover and combat the smuggling of drugs by low-flying aircraft.” They pointed to Operation Outlook, a bi-national, multi-agency pilot project employed in the Spokane Sector from 2005 to 2008, which used military radar equipment. The initiative, “identified air-related smuggling trends and patterns and organizations active in cross border criminal activities.” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) who signed the letter, later announced that Secretary Napolitano had agreed to deploy radar technology across the northern border as quickly as possible.

During testimony on March 9, 2011, before a Senate Committee, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano addressed security improvements made along the Canada-U.S. border. This included more border patrol agents and infrastructure enhancements. In addition, she explained, “we have continued to deploy technology along the Northern border, including thermal camera systems, Mobile Surveillance Systems, and Remote Video Surveillance Systems. We also successfully completed the first long-range CBP Predator-B unmanned aircraft patrol.” In February of 2009, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) began using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) on the northern border and expanded the program in January of this year. The drones are equipped with infrared sensors and cameras that gather information. They are being used on surveillance missions to support counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism and border security operations. While U.S. drones have also been deployed on the southern border, it recently came to light that in some cases they have been flying over Mexico as part of deepening security cooperation between the two countries.

The Operational Integration Center (OIC) on Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan, officially opened on March 24, 2011. The facility, “will provide a centralized location for CBP, along with federal, state, local and international partners, to gather, analyze and disseminate operational and strategic data in the Great Lakes region of the Northern border.” The intelligence gathering center features a high-tech control room where video from cameras and surveillance stations can be monitored, as well as live feeds from helicopters and UAVs. Among the various U.S. agencies, it will also include the participation of the RCMP who will pass on any pertinent information to Canada Border Services and the Ontario Provincial Police. The new center is intended to, “bring about an increased unity of effort among participating agencies and help maximize resource utilization. The OIC will also draw support from field assets, intelligence resources, and a variety of technologies.” This could be the first of many such facilities which will expand surveillance capabilities and further militarize the northern border.

While there are many questions surrounding the proposed Canada-U.S. trade and security perimeter agreement, the overall objectives are to secure the external and internal borders of both countries. The plan is a continuation and expansion of the Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda. In a Fortress North America, the U.S. seeks to push out its security perimeter whereby the northern border would act as another layer of security. It would be open to trade, as well as trusted travellers and labour mobility. The move towards a North American security perimeter is nothing more than a pretext for U.S. control over the continent.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
U.S. Dictating North American Air Travel Security
Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties
U.S.- Canada Border Security and Military Integration
Expanding U.S.-Mexico Economic and Security Cooperation

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Video by NAUresistance

U.S. Dictating North American Air Travel Security

2011-04-11T15:05:00.001-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

Without much fanfare and overshadowed by Canadians heading to the polls on May 2 for the fourth election in seven years, a controversial bill that would further comply with U.S. aviation security practices became law. The measure supports plans for a North American security perimeter and illustrates how the Canadian government is more interested in appeasing U.S. interests than protecting the privacy and freedoms of its own citizens.

In November of 2007, the Conservative government expressed concerns over privacy implications associated with the U.S. Secure Flight Program and filed objections with the Department of Homeland Security. They were urging an exemption on a measure that would require Canadian airlines to turn over information on passengers flying over the U.S. en route to other destinations. Despite their grievances being dismissed, they eventually caved in to U.S. demands. In a move to further bring Canada in line with American air travel security rules, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act was introduced in Parliament on June 17 of last year. With little media attention, it passed through the House of Commons on March 2, 2011, by a vote of 246 to 34. On March 23, it received royal assent and became law. Under Bill C-42, Canadian airlines are required to send traveler information through the Secure Flight Program 72 hours before departure. The Transportation Security Administration checks the data against security watch lists which could result in passengers receiving extra screening or even being barred from boarding their flight.

In an Action Alert from December 2010, the Council of Canadians described how Bill C-42, “requires that a large amount of your personal information be transmitted to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security even if your flight only passes through U.S. airspace. It's not just name, gender, age and destination as government sources claim. Any and all information contained in your travel records will be transmitted to U.S. security officials, who may use it for whatever purposes they see fit.” It goes on to say, “Canada has made many steps to harmonize airline security with U.S. programs but none has been good enough to prevent ever more draconian demands. Our severely flawed made-in-Canada ‘no fly’ list was supposed to prevent the imposition of the U.S. list on Canada. But the benchmark has moved again to the point the U.S. must issue travel permissions to Canadians.” The Conservative government has failed to sufficiently safeguard the privacy of Canadians. Personal information collected could be used for immigration, as well as law enforcement purposes and could also be shared with other countries. Bill C-42 surrenders Canadian authority to the Department of Homeland Security.

Initially, the Liberal party criticized the government for introducing Bill C-42 and accused them of abandoning Canadian sovereignty. In an NDP press release issued before the crucial vote on the bill was held, they slammed the Liberals for now supporting it. They also questioned whether the Liberals could be trusted to defend privacy concerns associated with the proposed Canada-U.S. Beyond the Border trade and security deal. Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians acknowledged, “It was disturbing to see the Liberals so willing to vote in favour of C-42 when it is clearly wrapped up in Harper’s perimeter security plan with the U.S., which they have challenged as too secretive and in need of more debate.” He also added, “The ease with which the federal government handed over sovereignty on this critical security policy does not bode well for the perimeter security talks with President Obama.” Bill C-42 is a key component of the North American security perimeter. It is another example of how Canada is being further pressured to adopt U.S. security standards. In many cases, the Department of Homeland Security will now have the final say on who is allowed to travel to and from Canada.

In February of this year, a British man who was travelling with his family from Toronto back to England, was denied permission to board a plane because his name was on the U.S. no-fly list. After being stranded for several days, the British Embassy intervened and Dawood Hepplewhite was allowed to fly to Glasgow, Scotland. At the time, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) pointed out, “Bill C-42 hasn’t yet passed, but if aircraft carriers are providing passenger information to U.S. Secure Flight for overflights, then it would seem the aircraft carriers may be acting as if Bill C-42 is already law.” There are still questions as to why Hepplewhite’s name was on the no-fly list, but he suspects it is because he is a white Muslim and once applied to work in Yemen. The CCLA has concerns about the no-fly list's fairness and explained, “if a person believes they were wrongfully placed on the U.S. No Fly List, it is apparently very difficult to find out why they were placed on the list, and difficult to get their name off of the list.” As a result of the war on terrorism, the U.S. now has more control over air travel and is not only dictating North American, but also international security practices.

Increasingly, U.S. Department of Homeland Security requirements are being imposed on Canadians. There are real concerns on how civil liberties are being eroded by these new security measures. Canada has further surrendered privacy and sovereignty when it comes to air travel. In a fully integrated North American security perimeter, the U.S. would have the ultimate power to decide who is allowed to enter and who is allowed to leave.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
Canada Surrenders Sovereignty to U.S. Secure Flight Program
Canada-U.S. Deep Integration Agenda Continues Unabated
A North American Security Perimeter Threatens Sovereignty
Perimeter Security and the Future of North American Integration

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Canada-U.S. Deep Integration Agenda Continues Unabated

2011-03-28T17:33:00.001-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

Canada and the U.S recently issued a joint threat and risk assessment as part of ongoing efforts to further enhance security on the northern border. This initiative supports a declaration by the leaders which will work towards facilitating the movement of travel and trade between the two countries. The Canadian government has announced that they are seeking online public consultation on the security perimeter arrangement. Meanwhile, the country has been thrust into an election with the defeat of the ruling Conservative party in a non-confidence vote. During the campaign, sovereignty concerns associated with the proposed trade and security deal could become a hot-button issue.

On March 10 of this year, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Canada's Public Safety Minister Vic Toews unveiled a Joint Border Threat and Risk Assessment. The report focuses on national security, criminal enterprises, migration, agriculture and health threats to the border. A press release described how the joint initiative, “is a part of a shared vision for border security that Secretary Napolitano and Minister Toews outlined during meetings held throughout 2010, and reflects their mutual commitment to working together to safeguard both nations' vital assets, networks, infrastructure and citizens.” The assessment addresses common threats to the border such as, “terrorism and transnational crime articulated by President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in February. Their historic declaration – ‘Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness’ – sets forth how the United States and Canada will manage our shared homeland and economic security."

The Conservative government has maintained that a security perimeter with the U.S. will not impact on sovereignty, but a poll issued last month suggested that Canadians remain concerned. The Vancouver Sun reported that a survey conducted by Ipsos Reid found that 68% believe Canada, “will compromise too much power over decisions about immigration, privacy and security to get a perimeter security agreement.” The poll also found that 51% of Canadians don't, “trust Stephen Harper to negotiate a deal that improves border access but doesn't give up powers that are important to Canada maintaining its own independence.” With respect to transparency, "An overwhelming 91% of Canadians say the negotiations should take place in public so that they can see what is on the table." There is little doubt that the border deal will mean some sort of tradeoff between sovereignty and security.

Since the Beyond the Border declaration was announced, the Canadian government has taken some heat for the bilateral talks being held in secret. In an attempt to try and curb some of the criticism, they launched a new website where the public can share their ideas on the planned security perimeter. The submission guidelines explain, “From now through to April 21, 2011, you can participate in our online consultation and provide your thoughts on initiatives that would improve security while supporting economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity.” Apparently, the results will later be published and will help shape an action plan that is expected to be released in the coming months. Much like the infamous Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, this latest undertaking with the U.S. lacks transparency and thus far, Parliament and Congress have also been excluded from the whole process. While asking for feedback from Canadians is a step in the right direction, the measure falls well short of any national debate on the subject.

The new security perimeter deal has yet to be defined, at least publicly. In a recent Action Alert, the Council of Canadians acknowledged, “no one can know for sure what ‘perimeter security’ means until the details, which are being developed behind closed doors, are announced in June. And we are being asked to suggest only improvements (not criticisms) of a plan we haven't seen. Furthermore, the government is clearly prioritizing the input of business groups, though all Canadian residents will be impacted by deeper security ties with the United States.” NDP MP Brian Masse called the government’s decision to offer only online public input on the proposed North American security perimeter, unacceptable and inadequate. In a letter written to International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan, Masse stated, “It is my hope that you will reconsider this half measure and give Canadians the opportunity to engage the government directly in this process by conducting public consultations across Canada.” With a federal election now set for May 2, Canadians will get a chance to voice their opinions at the ballot box.

Negotiations on a Canada-U.S. trade and security agreement have sparked privacy concerns, along with fears that sovereignty could be sacrificed. During the course of the election campaign, this could become an important issue. While a lot can change over the next month, the Conservatives are currently leading in the polls. If they are able to secure a majority government, this would give them a clear mandate to pursue a continental security perimeter pact. The opposition Liberals have been somewhat critical of the proposed deal, but if they do win the election, it is unlikely that they would make any changes. In Canada, whether it’s the Conservative or Liberal party holding the reigns of power and in the U.S., a Democrat or Republican in the White House, deep North American integration continues unabated.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Perimeter Security and the Future of North American Integration
A North American Security Perimeter Threatens Sovereignty
Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties
Towards a North American Security Perimeter

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Expanding U.S.-Mexico Economic and Security Cooperation

2011-03-14T08:03:00.001-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

There were growing concerns over drug violence prior to the recent U.S.-Mexico summit, along with other issues which have been a source of friction between the two countries. Despite any perceived tension, both leaders showcased their bilateral partnership and vowed to enhance collaboration. They focused on immigration, along with economic issues and took steps to end the long-standing dispute over cross-border trucking. The leaders also agreed to further deepen their cooperation in combating drug cartels.

During a Joint Press Conference following their bilateral meeting, President Barack Obama praised Mexico as a valued partner and thanked President Felipe Calderon for, “being here today to deepen the cooperation that is so essential to the prosperity and security of both of our countries.” He noted, “we’re moving ahead with plans for a 21st century border so people and goods can cross securely and efficiently. We’re working to coordinate and streamline regulations and get rid of unnecessary trade barriers to make it easier to do business together.” Obama also announced, “we finally have found a clear path to resolving the dispute over trucking between our two countries.” He added, “I look forward to consulting with Congress and moving forward in a way that strengthens the safety of cross-border trucking, lifts tariffs on billions of dollars of U.S. goods, (and) expands our exports to Mexico.” Under NAFTA, the border was to be opened to Mexican trucks, but safety concerns blocked the provision’s implementation. In the coming months, negotiators are expected to table an agreement that will include a phased-in program to settle the issue.

The meeting between Obama and Calderon also focused on regulatory cooperation. In May of 2010, the U.S. and Mexico established the High Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC), “to identify areas of mutual interest for regulatory cooperation, with a focus on improving intra-North American commerce and enhancing the competitiveness of North American producers.” In September of last year, the HLRCC, “agreed to work collaboratively to share information about upcoming regulations, identify those regulations that might impede North American competitiveness, and consider joint work in specific sectors.” The recent U.S.-Mexico summit laid out goals for the HLRCC which included linking regulatory cooperation to improve border-crossing and customs procedures, increasing regulatory transparency, as well as making regulations more compatible and simple. Improving regulatory cooperation was a key element of the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The HLRCC is similar to the newly created United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council and is an example of how North American integration has further shifted to a dual-bilateral approach.

In an interview that took place a week before his meeting with Obama, a frustrated Calderon criticized U.S. cooperation in the battle against drug cartels as insufficient. During his visit, there was no apparent dissension, at least not publicly. It was clear by their press conference which followed bilateral talks, that both leaders were moving forward and taking the opportunity to further bolster ties between the two countries. Obama proclaimed, “We’re also deepening our cooperation against the drug cartels that threaten both our peoples.” He went on to say, “I have reaffirmed to President Calderon that in this cause, Mexico has a full partner with the United States.” As part of the Merida Initiative Obama said, “we are continuing to speed up the delivery of equipment and training that our Mexican partners need to keep up this fight.” In regards to security issues, Calderon stated, “both governments have taken on our positions as co-responsible parties in the fight against transnational organized crime. This is a paradigm change in our relationship.” He also explained, “Our bilateral relationship, my friends, does not only have a huge impact on the lives of Mexicans and Americans, but today it’s taken on with increasing strength and clarity and coordination by both of our governments.”

In her article US-Mexico Relations Back on Track–In the Wrong Direction Laura Carlsen, director of the Americas Policy Program described how, “The binational relationship suffered some serious blows in the weeks preceding Calderon’s Washington visit. The release of thousands of Wikileaks cables between the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City and the State Department revealed U.S. officials’ deep concerns regarding the Mexican government’s capacity to carry out its high-risk war on drug cartels.” She added, “Tensions also followed the assassination of Jaime Zapata, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in San Luis Potosí on Feb. 15. Although the Mexican government has arrested the alleged attackers–members of the Zetas drug cartel–the incident highlighted the risks of the drug war cooperation and the power of the cartels.” In the aftermath of their bilateral meeting Carlsen acknowledged, “Despite talk of a deteriorating relationship, in fact the Calderon and Obama administrations are overseeing the birth of historically unprecedented cooperation between the two nations.”

While the U.S.-Mexico partnership will encounter more difficulties along the way, both countries are forging closer economic and security ties. Unfortunately, rather than plotting a new course, they have recommitted to the failed war on drugs. A stable Mexico is critical to U.S. national interests, but not enough is being done to secure the southern border. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Canada are pursuing a new trade and security perimeter agreement without their NAFTA partner. Although trilateralism has taken a backseat to bilateral initiatives, Mexico remains important to the future security of North America.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Perimeter Security and the Future of North American Integration
Strengthening NAFTA Ties and the Push Towards a Common Security Front

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Perimeter Security and the Future of North American Integration

2011-02-28T15:52:00.001-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

Out of the ashes of the defunct Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the U.S. has pursued simultaneous bilateral agendas with both Canada and Mexico, in an effort to further deepen North American economic and security integration. While the NAFTA framework remains intact, a recent announcement by Canada and the U.S. to work towards a trade and security perimeter agreement without Mexico, has some questioning the future of the whole trilateral process.

Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon recently addressed the Council on Foreign Relations where he emphasized Canada-U.S. bilateral achievements and called for greater integration between the two countries. In his speech, Minister Cannon praised the February 4, Beyond the Border declaration issued by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper as, “a bold new step, intended to bring our economic competitiveness and our security perimeter to a higher level of joint commitment.” In regards to shared engagement in the hemisphere, he added, “Our Americas strategy is focused on promoting prosperity, democracy and security.” Cannon acknowledged, “We are working with the U.S. to help Mexico strengthen its police forces and judicial institutions to combat transnational, organized crime.” He also added, “The problems on the U.S. southern border are real but fundamentally different from those on your northern border.” Some have blamed the failure of the SPP on the trilateral approach and believe that it also prevented more meaningful Canada-U.S. bilateralism in areas of security, trade and energy.

In a recent article, Duncan Wood gives some reasons for Mexico being left out of Canada-U.S. negotiations on a perimeter security arrangement. He points to its worsening security situation, differences in development from its NAFTA partners, immigration concerns, along with Canada's reluctance to address border issues in a trilateral manner. Duncan also questioned, “What, then, does the perimeter security deal mean for the future of North American relations? I would venture that it marks the official beginning of a two-speed reality in the NAFTA region, with Mexico very much moving on the slower track. Canada will benefit from its deal with the US through closer ties.” Canada does hope to further strengthen its strategic relationship with the U.S. and increase its influence in Washington. The Economist sums up the current state of North American integration, “The main obstacle to trilateral co-operation is that Canada and Mexico are much more interested in their relations with the United States than they are in each other.” In many ways the Canada-U.S. bilateral border security agenda is being replicated through U.S.-Mexico initiatives, but with some variations that reflect the dynamics of the southern border.

Increasingly, security issues are further shaping continental integration. The Merida Initiative has provided a platform to deepen U.S.-Mexico relations. This has enabled the U.S. to assume more control over Mexican security priorities and intelligence operations. A U.S. State Department fact sheet entitled United States-Mexico Security Partnership: Progress and Impact proclaimed how both, “governments have built on the foundations of the Merida Initiative to establish four strategic areas to guide our cooperation and institutionalize our partnership: disrupt organized criminal groups; strengthen institutions; create a 21st century border; and build strong and resilient communities.” A New Border Vision for the 21st century is, “based on the principles of joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel.” A U.S.-Mexico declaration issued in May of last year, highlights key goals in strengthening border security. It also established the Twenty-First Century Border Bilateral Executive Steering Committee (ESC) in order to coordinate the implementation of joint initiatives.

In December of last year, the ESC tabled a Bilateral Action Plan. It included initiatives in areas of bi-national infrastructure coordination, risk management, pre-clearance, pre-screening and pre-inspection, along with greater law enforcement cooperation. The ESC also announced other cross-border and pilot projects. They agreed to expand trusted traveler and shipper programs in order to facilitate the flow of people and goods between the two countries. Some of these objectives are similar to those found in the recent Canada-U.S. declaration which lays out a framework to begin negotiations on a new trade and security agreement. It appears as if the newly created Beyond the Border Working Group will function much in the same capacity as the ESC and will also present a joint Plan of Action in the coming months.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is scheduled to meet with U.S. President Barrack Obama in Washington on March 3. It is being described as a working visit where the leaders will, “discuss key issues in relations between the two countries and regional and international issues of common interest.” Calderon will also meet with Republican Congressman and Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner. Over the last several months, there has been numerous high-level discussions regarding North American issues. This includes a meeting in late January between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mexico’s Foreign Secretary Patricia Espinosa. In a joint press conference, Clinton declared, “we are following through on the declaration by both of our presidents on 21st century border management. We’re exploring ways to inspect and clear legitimate goods away from border stations. We are trying to do more on our side of the border to prevent money laundering and illegal arms coming into Mexico.” Clinton’s visit to Guanajuato was used as an opportunity to reinforce the close relations between the two countries and to identify common goals, as well as strategies to ensure greater security cooperation.

The growing violence and insecurity in Mexico, along with other challenges, have altered the trilateral agenda. As a result, the focus has further shifted to a dual-bilateral approach in managing continental border and economic concerns. This is not to say that trilateralism has been abandoned. Under the right circumstances, these parallel bilateral initiatives could converge into one to create a fully integrated North American security perimeter that includes not only Canada and the U.S., but Mexico as well.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
A North American Security Perimeter Threatens Sovereignty
Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties
North American Integration Back on the Front Burner‏‏
Towards a North American Security Perimeter

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

A North American Security Perimeter Threatens National Sovereignty

2011-02-06T17:41:00.001-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

Canada and the U.S. have officially launched negotiations on a trade and security agreement which would take continental integration to the next level. A declaration issued by the leaders follows months of secret preliminary talks. The deal would work towards facilitating the movement of travel and trade across the northern border. This includes pursuing a perimeter approach to security in an effort to better address common threats. The agreement sets in motion an agenda with the aim of going beyond NAFTA and further expanding on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), but in the context of a bilateral framework.

On February 4, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a declaration which, “establishes a new long-term partnership that will accelerate the legitimate flows of people and goods between both countries, while strengthening security and economic competitiveness.” Beyond the Border: a Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness will, “focus on four areas of co-operation: addressing threats early; trade facilitation, economic growth and jobs; integrated cross-border law enforcement; and critical infrastructure and cyber-security.” According to the declaration, both nations will, “develop a joint action plan on perimeter security and economic competitiveness that will set out a range of initiatives in the four key areas to improve both countries’ ability to manage security risks, while facilitating the flow of people, goods and services.” The newly formed Beyond the Border Working Group will, “report to their respective Leaders in the coming months, and after a period of consultation, with a joint Plan of Action to realize the goals of this declaration.” The agenda set forth is nothing more than a rehashing of some of the SPP's security priorities, but without Mexican involvement.

President Obama and Prime Minster Harper also addressed ways to coordinate and harmonize regulations in order to ease red tape for businesses that do trade on both sides of the border. They announced the creation of the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) which will, “promote economic growth, job creation, and benefits to our consumers and businesses through increased regulatory transparency and coordination.” According to a joint statement, the leaders, “are committed to working through the RCC to provide early notice of regulations with potential effects across our shared border, to strengthen the analytic basis of regulations, and to help make regulations more compatible.” Both countries will also, “work through the RCC to determine sectors on which to focus its work that are characterized by high levels of integration, significant growth potential, and rapidly evolving technologies.” Improving regulatory cooperation was a key element of the SPP’s prosperity agenda. Its stated goals are laid out in the SPP Regulatory Cooperation Framework.

At a Joint Press Conference following their bilateral meeting, President Obama proclaimed, “we agreed to a new vision for managing our shared responsibilities — not just at the border but ‘beyond the border.’ That means working more closely to improve border security with better screening, new technologies and information-sharing among law enforcement, as well as identifying threats early.” He went on to say, “We’ve directed our teams to develop an action plan to move forward quickly. And I’m confident that we’re going to get this done so that our shared border enhances our shared prosperity.” Prime Minister Harper explained, “The declaration President Obama and I are issuing today commits our governments to find new ways to exclude terrorists and criminals who pose a threat to our peoples. It also commits us to finding ways to eliminate regulatory barriers to cross-border trade and travel.” Harper also pledged his undying support to his U.S. partner, “I have said before, a threat to the United States is a threat to Canada -- to our trade, to our interests, to our values, to our common civilization. Canada has no friends among America’s enemies, and America has no better friend than Canada.”

During the news conference, there was clearly an attempt by the leaders to preemptively address any sovereignty fears associated with their announcement. Harper acknowledged, “The declaration marks the start of this endeavor, not the end; an ambitious agenda between two countries, sovereign and able to act independently when we so choose according to our own laws and aspirations.” When answering a reporter’s question on sovereignty and privacy concerns, Harper reassured that, “this declaration is not about sovereignty. We are sovereign countries who have the capacity to act as we choose to act. The question that faces us is to make sure we act in a sovereign way that serves Canada’s interests.” Obama chimed in, “With respect to security issues and sovereignty issues, obviously, Canada and the United States are not going to match up perfectly on every measure with respect to how we balance security issues, privacy issues, openness issues.” He also added, “I have great confidence that Prime Minister Harper is going to be very protective of certain core values of Canada, just as I would be very protective of the core values of the United States, and those won’t always match up perfectly.”

This new bilateral undertaking is being sold as vital to the safety and prosperity of both countries. Despite claims that it would not result in either side surrendering sovereignty, many concerns remain, especially from a Canadian perspective. Thus far, the whole process has lacked transparency and any input from the public. This has drawn comparisons to the SPP which from the beginning, was shrouded in secrecy and fueled by fears over the loss of sovereignty that ultimately led to its downfall. Any deal which could give the U.S. Department of Homeland Security more influence over Canadian border security and immigration practices, poses a risk to sovereignty and privacy rights. There are also concerns over increased information-sharing with other American law enforcement agencies. A North American security perimeter would be defined and dominated by U.S. interests. It would force Canada to make significant sacrifices in regards to sovereignty which could dramatically change the country forever.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties
North American Integration Back on the Front Burner‏‏
Towards a North American Security Perimeter
Canada Surrenders Sovereignty and Privacy to U.S. Secure Flight Program

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties

2011-01-29T18:06:00.001-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

A recent North American defense ministers meeting was originally scheduled to be a trilateral gathering, but Mexico’s Secretary of Defense was unable to participate in the summit. Canada-U.S. talks focused on continental, hemispheric, as well as global defense issues. The meeting went a long way to further deepen bilateral security and military ties. It was also significant considering that Canada and the U.S. are currently negotiating an agreement that would work towards establishing a perimeter approach to security.

On January 27, Canadian Minister of National Defense Peter MacKay hosted a bilateral meeting with his American counterpart U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, which centered on security issues of common interest. MacKay characterized the bilateral talks as an opportunity to, “build a better understanding of the threats facing our countries, as well as discuss the most effective ways to address them.” He added, “Our objective is simple: we will work to build on our defence and security cooperation with coordinated and sustained action.” Gates and MacKay addressed security issues facing Mexico and Central America. They discussed expanding cooperation in the Arctic, along with efforts to counter piracy, narcotics and human-trafficking. Also on the agenda was Afghanistan. Canada was set to pull its troops out in July of this year, but now its mission has been extended. It will transition from a combat role to training members of the Afghan military and police forces until 2014. In the coming years, Canada could be asked to play a bigger role in the war on terrorism, including participation in any future U.S.-NATO military operations.

At a Joint Press Conference the Canadian and U.S. defense chiefs further elaborated on what was discussed during their meeting. Minister Mackay emphasized that the talks, “were successful in strengthening and expanding the already strong defense relationship that exists between our two countries and in improving our bilateral coordination to effectively address threats to our common security.” He went on to say, “we discussed our bilateral efforts through NORAD as well as new challenges facing our defense and security institutions such as maritime domain awareness which now falls under NORAD, and ways to make our maritime approaches safer and cyber threats.” MacKay acknowledged, “What Secretary Gates and I discussed today will deepen the unique partnership between our countries on important defense issues and ultimately increase security for our citizens and our coordinated contributions to global security.” Although it was not specifically mentioned, the talks would have provided a perfect opportunity to address any military aspects associated with the proposed security perimeter agreement.

In a statement following the bilateral meeting, Secretary Gates announced that, “Moving forward, we’ll examine together how the advanced defenses of our military networks might also be applied to protect critical civilian infrastructure.” In July of 2010, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, reached an agreement to safeguard and respond to disruptions of shared infrastructure that connect the two nations. The Canada-U.S. Action Plan for Critical Infrastructure is designed to, “strengthen the safety, security and resiliency of Canada and the United States by establishing a comprehensive cross-border approach to critical infrastructure resilience.” This includes building partnerships, improved information sharing, as well as risk management aimed at increasing the ability to prepare for emergencies, such as a natural disaster and a terrorist or cyber attack. The action plan is part of ongoing cross-border collaboration and appears to be linked to the Civil Assistance Plan signed by the Canadian-U.S. military in 2008, which allows the armed forces of one nation to support the other during an emergency.

During the news conference, questions also turned to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and concerns over rising costs, along with other production problems which prompted both Gates and MacKay to defend the project. Secretary Gates explained, “having all of our partners continue to be with us in this program is very important, and I'm pleased at the number of our allies who are going forward with the F-35.” Canada has announced plans to purchase 65 F-35 fighter jets at a price tag of $16 billion. Both the opposition Liberal party and the NDP have been critical of the deal, but the Conservative government maintains that any changes to their decision to buy the fighter jets would put the future of Canada’s air force at risk. Some have warned that the acquisition could trigger an Arctic arms race. The decision to purchase the new stealth F-35’s reaffirms Canada’s commitment to NORAD and NATO. It is also closely tied to deeper Canada-U.S. military integration and plans for a North American security perimeter.

There are reports that the signing of a security perimeter agreement between Canada-U.S. has now been delayed. When news leaked late last year of an imminent trade and security deal between the two countries, it caused an uproar in Canada. At first, the Conservative government denied any such claims, but later they admitted that negotiations are taking place. With speculation of a possible federal election in the spring, it would make sense to wait for such an announcement. This could avoid any sovereignty concerns becoming an issue during the campaign. If an election is called and the Conservatives do win and are able to secure a majority government, they could also proclaim that they have a mandate to pursue a perimeter security deal. In December of last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper acknowledged in the House of Commons that, “Canada already operates under what is called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) with the United States and Mexico.” This is further proof that the SPP never truly died. A perimeter approach to continental security is a continuation of the SPP agenda and will serve to expand the Canada-U.S. relationship in the confines of Fortress North America.

In a speech from 2008, former Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon spoke on the evolution of NAFTA and how the SPP process, “understands North America as a shared economic space and that as a shared economic space we need to protect it, and that we need to understand that we don’t protect this economic space only at our frontiers, that it has to be protected more broadly throughout North America. And as we have worked through the Security and Prosperity Partnership to improve our commercial and trading relationship, we have also worked to improve our security cooperation. To a certain extent, we’re armoring NAFTA.” For those championing for deeper Canada-U.S. integration a North American security perimeter is seen as a logical next step. There now appears to be a renewed push to take NAFTA and the SPP design to the next level and incrementally closer to a North American Union.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
North American Integration Back on the Front Burner‏‏
Towards a North American Security Perimeter
Expanding U.S.-Canada Security and Economic Partnership
Strengthening NAFTA Ties and the Push Towards a Common Security Front

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog at beyourownleader.blogspot.com

From NAFTA to CETA: Canada-EU Deep Economic Integration

2011-01-12T11:58:00.001-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

Canada and the European Union (EU) have already held five rounds of negotiations towards a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) which will go beyond NAFTA. With the sixth round of talks scheduled to take place in Brussels, Belgium from January 17-21, Canadian and EU officials remain optimistic that a deal could be finalized by the end of 2011. Thus far, negotiations have included key areas such as goods, rules of origin, services, investment, government procurement, as well as others. As talks enter their final crucial stages, there are growing concerns over the threat CETA poses to Canadian sovereignty. Coupled with the financial turmoil sweeping Europe, deep economic integration with the EU could prove disastrous.

In a recent article Maude Barlow, national chair of the Council of Canadians, points out the dangers Canada faces with the current CETA trade model. She warns that, “CETA will open up the rules, standards and public spending priorities of provinces and municipalities to direct competition and challenge from European corporations.” Barlow goes on to say, “Europe is seeking a comprehensive and aggressive global approach to acquiring the raw materials needed by its corporations. At its heart, this deal is a bid for unprecedented and uncontrolled European access to Canadian resources.” She also added, “CETA will likely have a NAFTA-type investor-state enforcement mechanism, which means that European corporations will have the same right that U.S. companies now enjoy to sue the Canadian government if it introduces new rules to protect the environment.” If CETA includes something similar to NAFTA's Chapter 11 which gives corporations the power to challenge laws and regulations that restrict their profits, U.S. and Mexican companies could benefit from any rulings that favour the EU. Ultimately, like NAFTA and other trade deals, CETA will further serve corporate interests.

A report released in December of last year, entitled Public Water for Sale: How Canada will privatize our public water systems, “exposes how CETA would open up public municipal water systems across Canada to privatization.” The paper prepared by the the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Union of Public Employees cautions that, “public water in Canada will be lost unless the provinces and territories take immediate steps to remove water from the scope of the proposed Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.” The Union of B.C. Municipalities supports a resolution by those cities and towns who wish to receive a clear, permanent exemption from CETA. Others have voiced opposition to any deal that could deny government the ability to favour local businesses and create jobs. There has been increased pressure on Ottawa to either fully or partly shield the municipal sector from government procurement of goods and services. Giving the EU full access to sub-national purchasing and contracting in Canada would open up areas such as school boards, universities, hospitals, as well as other provincial agencies.

The October 2010 report, Out of Equilibrium: The Impact of EU-Canada Free Trade on the Real Economy written by economist Jim Stanford warns that Canada’s bilateral trade deficit with the EU could grow under CETA. Released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the paper, “models three scenarios to provide a range of estimates regarding the likely impacts of EU-Canada free trade. In every case, Canada’s bilateral trade balance worsens significantly. The simulations suggest an incremental loss of between 28,000 and 150,000 Canadian jobs.” Many of these could be good jobs in sectors such as machinery, chemicals, electronic, food-processing, apparel-making and the auto industry. The study on the economic impacts of CETA also, “estimates direct losses in Canadian GDP between 0.56% and almost 3%, experienced over several years of adjustment to the new trade pact. Indirect losses of spin-off production, employment, and investment could add significantly to those economic losses.” Stanford concluded, “Free trade with Europe will take a bad situation for Canada, marked by large deficits and lost jobs, and make it much worse.”

It is becoming apparent that Canadian sacrifices in regards to a free trade agreement with the EU outweighs any potential benefits. While Canada does need to lessen its dependency on the U.S. economy, CETA is based on the failed NAFTA trade model and will only serve to accelerate the corporate takeover of the country. The sixth round of negotiations are expected to focus on sensitive areas such as tariffs on dairy imports, intellectual property rights investment and regulatory standardization, as well as public procurement. CETA is part of a larger agenda and could be used as a blueprint for a future US-EU trade agreement and a stepping-stone to a NAFTA-EU free trade zone.

At the EU-U.S. Summit held in Lisbon several months back, leaders reaffirmed their close partnership, as well as their desire to bring greater prosperity and security to both sides of the Atlantic. They recognised the central role of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) and entrusted, “the TEC to develop a transatlantic agenda to stimulate growth and create jobs in key emerging sectors and technologies.” The TEC was called upon to, “identify ways to improve transatlantic consultation before regulators and agencies develop regulation in economically promising new technologies and sectors, to share best practices, and to develop joint principles with the aim of promoting maximum compatibility of regulations and the freest possible transatlantic flow of ideas, products, and services.” The TEC was established in 2007 in an effort to work towards increasing investment, eliminating trade barriers and streamlining harmonization on regulations. It is the framework for advancing transatlantic economic integration between the U.S. and the EU.

In December of last year, the TEC met in Washington where, “European Commissioners and leading US government representatives took the first concrete steps to ensure the TEC process creates a forward-looking business environment that reduces regulatory barriers and encourages innovation, shared standards and high-tech business.” An agreement on a common approach to electronic health record systems and a declaration on energy efficiency was also signed. The TEC meeting identified other, “key areas for joint activities in the innovation sector and discussed ways to ensure secure trade and strengthen the customs cooperation between the two partners.” The TEC has been compared to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Along with NAFTA, the SPP agenda which continues to move forward through other initiatives, is essentially laying the foundation for a North American Union. A Canada-EU trade deal would be an incremental step towards a Free Trade Area of the Atlantic and an eventual Transatlantic Union.

Canada has fared better than other countries during the current financial crisis. With parts of Europe still marred in recession and debt trouble, a trade agreement with the EU, especially under the template in which it is being negotiated could prove costly. Failed monetary policies and government managed free trade agreements that favour corporate interests, deserve their share of the blame for the current global economic predicament. Yet, we are still being told that more globalization is the solution to our financial woes. In order to further restructure the world, the ruling elite seek to capitalize on the economic chaos which in many ways they engineered.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
Advancing the Transatlantic Agenda
Spreading NAFTA's Love Across the Atlantic

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Image by NAUresistance

North American Integration Back on the Front Burner‏‏

2010-12-27T12:58:00.001-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

In the last year, the bilateral process has been the primary means used to advance North American integration, which has drawn little attention. With the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) seemingly stalled after being exposed and discredited, the U.S. channelled trilateral negotiations to parallel bilateral discussions with both Canada and Mexico. Recent reports of a tentative Canada-U.S. security and trade agreement has once again highlighted the whole process of deep continental integration. The U.S. is formulating a strategy with the aim of implementing a North American security perimeter.

NAFTA has allowed the U.S. to further extend its political and economic influence over the continent. Through the SPP, it has evolved to include more security issues. Based on the war on drugs and the war on terrorism, the U.S. is developing a North American security strategy with the goal being to push out its security perimeter. The Merida Initiative conceived in 2007 and launched the following year by the Bush administration, signalled a new era of U.S.-Mexico security collaboration. The plan has provided Mexico with millions in funding for law enforcement, military equipment and surveillance technology. Under the pretext of combating illegal drug-trafficking and fighting transnational organized crime, the U.S. has been able to exert more authority over Mexican security policies.

President Obama has continued and expanded the Merida Initiative. The U.S. and Mexico have further broadened and deepened their cooperation. A U.S. State Department fact sheet entitled United States-Mexico Security Partnership: Progress and Impact proclaimed how both, “governments have built on the foundations of the Merida Initiative to establish four strategic areas to guide our cooperation and institutionalize our partnership: disrupt organized criminal groups; strengthen institutions; create a 21 st century border; and build strong and resilient communities.” A New Border Vision for the 21st century is, “based on the principles of joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel.” A U.S.-Mexico declaration issued in May, further highlights key goals in strengthening border security. In order to better coordinate the implementation of joint initiatives, the Twenty-First Century Border Bilateral Executive Steering Committee (ESC) was also established.

On December 15, the ESC’s inaugural meeting was held where a Bilateral Action Plan was adopted. This included initiatives in areas of bi-national infrastructure coordination, risk management, pre-clearance, pre-screening and pre-inspection, along with greater law enforcement cooperation. The ESC also announced other cross-border and pilot projects. They agreed to expand trusted traveler and shipper programs in order to facilitate the flow of people and goods between the two countries. The specific goals that were laid out set in motion a bilateral agenda for the next year. They represent a move towards a common perimeter approach to border management and security, which could later require harmonization of immigration and customs standards.

It is unclear whether the Obama administration will attempt to overhaul immigration laws in the coming year. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010 S. 3982 was introduced in September, but never came to a vote in the last Congress. In SEC 121. Annual Report on Improving North American Security Information Exchange, it refers to, “developing and implementing an immigration security strategy for North America that utilizes a common security perimeter by enhancing technical assistance for programs and systems to support advance automated reporting and risk targeting of international passengers.” Previous failed security and immigration bills have also contained similar language pertaining to a shared security perimeter around the continent.
　
There are fears that a leaked draft declaration between Canada and the U.S. entitled Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness could concede more control to American interests. According to the draft proposal, the agreement would work towards establishing a perimeter approach to security. This includes closer cooperation between law enforcement agencies, an integrated cargo strategy, as well as joint programs for port and border security and screening. The aim is to further facilitate travel and trade across the northern border. The draft document also reveals that both countries intend to establish the Beyond the Border Working Group which will, “report to their respective Leaders within one hundred and twenty days of the signing of this Declaration with, a joint Plan Of Action to realize the goals.” Many of the key objectives of the tentative Canada-U.S. deal mirror those found in the U.S.-Mexico vision for a 21st century border. This includes the whole process of implementing the various bilateral initiatives. Both border plans represent a continuation of the SPP agenda.

The Canada-U.S. security perimeter agreement also appears to contain elements of the US-VISIT program which involves, “the collection of biometrics—digital fingerprints and a photograph—from international travelers at U.S. visa-issuing posts and ports of entry.” The leaked draft declaration states, “We intend to work towards common standards for the use of biometrics, the sharing of information on travelers in real time, more precisely tailored screening, and improved methods of threat notification.” It goes on to say, “In order to promote mobility between our two countries, we expect to work towards an integrated United States-Canada entry-exit system by identifying and screening at the earliest opportunity - including through use of biometrics.” A common security perimeter would demand an even greater level of collaboration and would ultimately be defined by U.S. priorities. It also represents an important step in the creation of a North American Union.

After being tight-lipped on the subject, Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a recent interview, “confirmed Canada is holding ‘discussions’ with the United States on a deal that would tighten security against external terrorist threats and improve two-way trade between the countries.” He acknowledged that negotiations continue, but an agreement has yet to be reached. There have been reports that a deal could be announced early in the new year. Some believe that a common security perimeter would constitute erasing the borders between the two countries. Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom suggests that, “The U.S. would be happy to control Canada’s borders to the outside world. But no U.S. politician who wants to get re-elected would ever agree to weakening America’s northern border with Canada.” He goes on to say, “So the upshot of any perimeter deal will be to give the U.S two borders — an outer one around North America and an inner one at the 49th parallel.” The same concept could also be applied to the southern border. A North American security perimeter goes well beyond keeping the U.S. safe from any perceived threats. It is a means to secure trade, resources and corporate interests.

After a one year hiatus, Canada is set to host the next edition of the North American Leaders Summit in 2011. The recent North American Foreign Ministers Meeting was used to build on the progress made since the last leaders summit which was held in Guadalajara, Mexico in 2009. It helped shape the agenda for the upcoming summit, where the whole trilateral process in regards to continental integration could be recast. As 2010 comes to a close, it appears as if North American integration is back on the front burner.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
Towards a North American Security Perimeter
Expanding U.S.-Canada Security and Economic Partnership

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Image by NAUresistance

Towards a North American Security Perimeter

2010-12-11T11:43:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

There are numerous reports circulating that Canada and the U.S. are secretly negotiating a security and trade deal which could be signed as early as January 2011. The proposed agreement would establish a security perimeter as a means to better secure North America and stimulate trade. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), along with other U.S.-Canada initiatives have allowed the two countries to incrementally move towards creating a common security perimeter.

The idea of a Canada-U.S. security perimeter is not new. Various bilateral actions over the last number of years have further laid the groundwork for this concept to become a reality. In 2006, the renewal of NORAD added maritime warning missions to its existing duties, in an effort to address new and emerging continental threats. The U.S. and Canadian military signed the Civil Assistance Plan in 2008, which allows the armed forces of one nation to support the other during an emergency. Under the Shiprider program that became permanent in 2009, law enforcement officials from both countries are able to operate together in shared waterways to combat criminal activity. Other joint projects have also facilitated the move towards a common security perimeter. In July of this year, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced new cooperative initiatives to combat threats and expedite travel and trade. It appears as if some of SPP's security priorities have been incorporated into the proposed Canada-U.S. perimeter agreement.

CTV News has obtained a draft copy of the Canada-U.S. deal which reveals that both nations, “intend to pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries in a way that supports economic competitiveness, job creation and prosperity, and in a partnership to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two countries.” The proposed agreement covers shared border management issues, such as an integrated cargo security strategy, a joint approach to port and border security and screening, as well as cross-border sharing of information between law enforcement agencies. CTV also reported that according to, “the Canada-U.S. deal dubbed Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness, implementation would be handled by a newly created Beyond the Border Working Group.” A common security perimeter could force Canada to harmonize its immigration and refugee policies with the U.S. which would further undermine its sovereignty. It might also allow the U.S. to execute control of Canada in the advent of a terrorist attack or any other perceived threat to North America.

The Council of Canadians who were instrumental in exposing the SPP, have criticized the notion of a continental security perimeter as being unnecessary and invasive. A Press Release acknowledged that, “Since 2001, U.S. security demands of its two neighbours persistently intruded on the privacy and real security needs of the public.” It went on to say, “harmonization efforts have violated civil liberties while not improving trade flows between Canada and the United States in the slightest.” Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians stated, “We've gone down this road before -- it was called the Security and Prosperity Partnership -- and North Americans rejected it.” He also added, “Canada has armed and secured itself to the teeth to satisfy the U.S. but no new perimeter plan can bring the U.S. economy back to life. That's the real reason trade is down across the border.” The Council of Canadians is, “demanding the Harper government give parliament and the public a chance to see and debate the New Border Vision before Canada signs anything.” The Conservatives plan could be a hard sell as there is already a growing opposition and this may prompt them to play the fear card.

Canada is scheduled to host the North American Foreign Ministers Meeting on December 13. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon explained how the gathering, “is a key forum for identifying trilateral priorities and ways we can work together as partners in North America.” He went on to say, “It also represents an opportunity to engage in bilateral discussions with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Foreign Affairs Patricia Espinosa.” The trilateral meeting will address issues such as, “the state of the economy and North American prosperity, international security, energy and climate change, the health and safety of citizens, and matters concerning the western hemisphere as a whole.” The proposed Canada-U.S. security perimeter deal could also be on the agenda. In March, the U.S. and Mexico also announced similar plans for a New Border Vision.

At the recent G20 Summit held in South Korea, Mexican President Felipe Calderon met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. According to the Embassy of Mexico in Canada website they, “agreed on the importance of the next North America Leaders’ Summit, to be held in Canada at the beginning of year 2011. They underlined their shared will to promote regional cooperation in fields like competitiveness, security and environment, among others.” Although there was no leaders summit this year, President Calderon did make separate trips to the U.S. and Canada to strengthen NAFTA ties. Other key elements of the SPP also continued under the radar through various bilateral initiatives and further advanced North American integration. It is being reported that the proposed Canada-U.S. trade and security agreement could be announced in January. A leaders summit in early 2011, could be used as an opportunity to unveil a continental security perimeter that includes both the northern and southern borders which in many ways would signify the coronation of the North American Union.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon
Expanding U.S.-Canada Security and Economic Partnership
Canada Surrenders Sovereignty to U.S. Secure Flight Program
Strengthening NAFTA Ties and the Push Towards a Common Security Front

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Canada Surrenders Sovereignty and Privacy to U.S. Secure Flight Program

2010-11-29T15:47:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

Canada is under pressure from U.S. officials to further comply with American security rules which in some cases, threatens its sovereignty and the privacy of its citizens. As a result of the war on terrorism, the U.S. government now has more power to restrict air travel and is not only dictating North American, but also international security measures.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act would require Canadian airline carriers that fly over the U.S. to provide the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with passenger information. This includes name, date of birth, gender, as well as passport and itinerary details when applicable. Airlines landing in the U.S. already have to supply this information, but allowing personal data to be shared on passengers who are only flying through American airspace essentially shreds existing Canadian protection and privacy laws. Bill C-42 complies with the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Secure Flight Program which would take effect globally at the beginning of next year. Most Canadian commercial flights pass over the U.S. while en route to Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe which in many cases would give the DHS the final say on who is allowed to travel to and from Canada.

Under Canada’s Passenger Protect Program, “airlines must compare passenger's names against a list that is controlled and managed by Transport Canada before a boarding pass is issued.” Secure Flight transfers that authority from airlines to the DHS. TSA will be responsible for pre-screening passengers and their personal information against federal government watch lists. According to the Secure Flight Final Rule document issued in 2008, “If necessary, the TSA analyst will check other classified and unclassified governmental terrorist, law enforcement, and intelligence databases, including databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, National Counter Terrorism Center, and Federal Bureau of Investigation." With many well documented issues surrounding the accuracy of security watch lists, U.S. mistakes could further prevent more Canadians from flying to foreign destinations. There are also concerns that data collected on Canadian citizens will be readily accessible to a broad range of U.S. agencies and just what might be done with the information.

Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart recently appeared before a committee examining Bill C-42. She acknowledged privacy concerns caused by increased aviation security measures which, “have resulted in the creation of massive government databases, the use of secretive no-fly lists, the increased scrutiny of travellers and airport workers and greater information sharing with foreign governments.” Stoddart explained that Bill C-42, “will allow American or other authorities to collect personal information about travellers on flights to and from Canada that fly through American airspace and this, in turn, will allow American authorities to prevent individuals from flying to or from Canada.” Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has insisted that the U.S would only use the personnel data for air security purposes, but Stoddart admitted, “our understanding is that information collected can be disclosed and used for purposes other than aviation security, such as law enforcement and immigration purposes.” The Canadian government has failed to sufficiently safeguard the privacy of its citizens and there are fears any information collected could be misused.

In October, NDP Member of Parliament Don Davies warned that Bill C-42 would give U.S. security agencies unprecedented access to Canadians' personal information. He addressed a whole subset of data that could be obtained by U.S authorities through the passenger name record created when booking with travel agents. This includes, “credit card information, who we are travelling with, our hotel, other booking information such as tours or rental cars, any medical condition of the passenger that may have been disclosed, dietary preferences, our email address, our employer information, our telephone information, our baggage information.” Davis also added, “This bill would effectively allow the United States to determine when Canadians can leave Canada to fly to many destinations in the world that have nothing to do with the United States. This bill violates Canadians' freedoms. It violates Canadians' mobility rights.” Bill C-42 is an encroachment on sovereignty and gives the U.S. unprecedented power over who can board planes that fly over its airspace.

In January of this year, following the failed underwear bombing and at the request of the U.S., Canada installed full body scanners at its major airports. So far, the Canadian government maintains that they will not institute aggressive TSA-style pat-downs, but another incident could change that. The new airport security measures can only be described as intrusive and degrading with some critics also labelling them as ineffective. In the U.S., there has been a growing public backlash against the use of naked body scanners and other invasive TSA security procedures. In an effort to prevent this discontent from spreading across the border, Canadian Transport officials have begun installing private search areas at designated airports. Booths set up at security checkpoints will give passengers the option of private pat-downs. In the near future, airport security practices could be expanded to other modes of transportation. Implementation of a high-tech control grid would further restrict, track and trace our movements.

Although the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) may no longer be active (in name only), the harmonizing of some of its key priorities in areas such as traveller, cargo and aviation security, as well as others continues through different initiatives. Part of the SPP agenda also called for merging no-fly lists into a single North American database. In an effort to keep travel and trade moving across the border, Canada will be further pressured to adopt a single security strategy dominated by U.S. interests.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

NATO Arctic Security and Canadian Sovereignty in the Far North

2010-11-22T11:22:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

In many ways, the Arctic has become a geopolitical game with mixed messages being sent from all sides. There appears to be a real contradiction in what is being said and what is actually being done to safeguard sovereignty. While Arctic countries have emphasized the importance of resolving conflicting boundary claims through enhanced cooperation, at times, rhetoric has served to fuel rivalries in the resource-rich area. NATO has declared the Arctic a strategically important region with northern member nations individually or collaboratively conducting military and naval operations to showcase their capabilities.

Some have called the release of Canada's Arctic Foreign Policy statement in August, a significant shift from the Conservative government’s often hostile approach in addressing sovereignty issues in the far north. The policy paper declared that, “Canada’s vision for the Arctic is of a stable, rules-based region with clearly defined boundaries.” It plans to pursue its interests through leadership, stewardship, diplomacy and respect for international law. Canada also seeks a more strategic engagement with the U.S. in the Arctic. Over the summer, they conducted their third joint continental shelf survey. The U.S. and Canada are gradually moving towards merging their Arctic foreign policies and further adopting a more North American strategy. While Canada is placing more emphasis on cooperation and appears ready to resolve boundary disputes, absent is any concrete suggestion on how to engage Russia. Both have claimed the Lomonosov Ridge under the Arctic as an extension of their respective continental shelves. Any aggressive moves to enforce sovereignty in the area could jeopardize future bilateral relations and lead to a possible confrontation.

During Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Arctic tour several months back, he announced support for Canada’s next generation of satellites known as RADARSAT Constellation Mission. The system consists of three advanced remote sensing satellites which will increase the ability to monitor activities in the region. Harper stated, “The RADARSAT project has consistently allowed us to defend our Arctic sovereignty, protect the Arctic ecosystem, and develop our resources.” He went on to say, “This new phase of RADARSAT will ensure we stay at the forefront of these priorities.” Enhancing surveillance capabilities is an important part of safeguarding Canada’s security and economic interests in the region. In addition, Harper also announced a new High Arctic Research Station. The year round facility will house scientists and is intended to further, “strengthen Canada’s Arctic sovereignty, promote economic and social development.” The prime minister has been accused of using his annual northern treks as photo opportunities and criticized for failing to deliver on some past Arctic promises. While on his trip, Harper also focused on security issues and observed military maneuvers.

This year's Operation Nanook, an annual Canadian Forces sovereignty exercise took place from August 6 to 26 in Canada's eastern and high Arctic area. It was important as for the first time, the Canadian-led exercise included military participation from fellow NATO members, the U.S. and Denmark. Canadian Navy, Army and Air Force personnel, collaborated with naval and air assets from the U.S. Second Fleet, along with the Royal Danish Navy, performing various security drills. The joint war games were intended to, “strengthen preparedness, increase interoperability and exercise a collective response to emerging challenges in the Arctic.” In March of this year, NATO troops also participated in Exercise Cold Response which was held in Norway. It included some 9.000 soldiers from 14 countries and focused, “on cold weather maritime/amphibious operations, interoperability of expeditionary forces, and special and conventional ground operations.” As Canada and other nations promote diplomacy, development and science as a means to assert sovereignty in the Arctic, at the same time they continue to expand military operations in the region.

In his article Welcome to a new era of Arctic security, Rob Huebert associate director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, remarked on the significance of American and Danish participation in Canada’s Operation Nanook. He stated it is, “interesting to see these three Arctic friends coming together to improve their naval combat capability in the Far North, a demonstration of force and solidarity to show the world they’re serious about protecting this region.” Huebert also brings Norway, another NATO member into the scenario and noted, “there seems to be a contradiction between what the four countries are doing and what they’re saying. As they take expensive and challenging steps to improve their combat capability in the Arctic, they continue to assert that the region is both stable and peaceful.” He goes on to say, “They may be telling their citizens that all is well in the Arctic, but their actions suggest this is not what they truly believe.” Huebert also added, “It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Moscow is the target of these vigorous military exercises in the Arctic.” Further control of the area is part of a broader global military agenda and there are fears of a potential showdown.

The Conservative government has used the threat of Russian air patrols in the Arctic to justify increased defense spending. In August, two CF-18 Hornet fighter jets were scrambled to shadow a pair of Russian TU-95 Bear bombers. The incident occurred on the eve of Prime Minister Harper’s yearly Arctic tour. There appears to have been no real danger and the closest the Russian planes got was within 30 nautical miles of Canadian airspace before turning back. NORAD described the flights as routine and said there was no cause for alarm. Nevertheless, the Harper government used the so-called bomber incursion to ramp up Arctic rhetoric and paint themselves as the defenders of Canada’s north. Hyping up the event was purely for political reasons and further allowed them to make a case for its plans to buy 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets at a price tag of $16 billion. Some have warned that the acquisition could trigger an Arctic arms race.The decision to purchase the new stealth F-35’s is closely tied to deeper U.S.-Canada military integration and a North American security perimeter. It reaffirms Canada’s commitment to NORAD as well as NATO.

During a news conference in September, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was asked by a journalist regarding his position on NATO presence in the Arctic. He seemed uneasy by its growing role and acknowledged, “the Russian Federation watches such activity intently and with some concern. Why? Because after all it is an area of peaceful cooperation, economic cooperation, and the presence of a military factor at the very least raises additional issues.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has also questioned the need for NATO in the region. He argued, “We do not see what benefit NATO can bring to the Arctic...I do not think NATO would be acting properly if it took upon itself the right to decide who should solve problems in the Arctic.” At times, Russia has been denounced for aggressively asserting its sovereignty in the far north which has prompted NATO’s increased cooperation in the area. In an effort to counter NATO expansion in the Arctic, Russia is further stepping up its military exercises and continues to improve its combat capabilities in the region.

At the recent Lisbon Summit, NATO unveiled, “a new Strategic Concept that will serve as the Alliance’s roadmap for the next ten years, reconfirming the commitment to defend one another against attack as the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security.” Part of the new plan includes NATO and Russia working towards a strategic partnership, “with the aim of contributing to the creation of a common space of peace, security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.” A joint statement also proclaimed that, “The NATO nations and Russia have, today, agreed, in writing, that while we face many security challenges, we pose no threat to each other.” What does this all mean for the Arctic region? Just last month, senior NATO commander Admiral James G Stavridis warned that climate change and a race for resources could lead to conflict in the high north.

Arctic nations continue to assert their sovereignty through military means. Rising tensions could further escalate the militarization of the region. While the process to resolve territorial disputes and the competition to secure resources has thus far been peaceful, there is still the threat of a future armed confrontation in the Arctic.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Future U.S.-Canada Joint Arctic Security and Control
NORAD-Russian Joint Air Drill, Bomber Incursions and Canada’s F-35 Jet Purchase

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

U.S. Economic, Political and Military Expansion in Asia-Pacific Region

2010-10-04T12:31:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

The U.S. is stepping up efforts to gain more influence in Asia-Pacific through participation in more regional institutions and negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. U.S. foreign policy seeks to shape the future of the region in an attempt to dominate economic, political and security issues.

There are concerns over the rise of trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific by U.S. competitors that could greatly affect its interests. The TPP is seen by many as a key component of America’s trade strategy for further engagement in the region. A U.S. government fact sheet describes the TPP as a, “potential platform for economic integration across the Asia Pacific region. The United States will engage with an initial group of seven like-minded countries, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei, Australia, Peru, and Vietnam, to craft a platform for a high-standard, comprehensive agreement - one that reflects U.S. priorities and values - with these and additional Asia-Pacific partners.” The TPP is open to other countries with Canada, Malaysia and the Philippines, among some of the nations that have shown interest in joining. It has been suggested that the U.S. may want the current eight partnership countries to reach an initial high-quality agreement before bringing others into the pact. In an effort to play a more dominant role, the TPP could be a means to address long-standing U.S. economic interests in Asia and be used to counter increasing Chinese trade in the region.

In his article Obama Pledges U.S. Entry Into Pacific Trade Deal, Jim Capo characterized the true nature of the TPP and just how it relates to a world government system. He concluded that, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is the sister agreement to the Trans-Atlantic Agenda. Together with NAFTA and the North American Leaders Summit (new name for the discredited SPP), these deals are building blocks for an integrated system of global governance managed by Western financial interests and their collaborators around the world.” Some remain hopeful that the TPP will be the beginning of a new U.S. trade model, but there are fears that it could be another NAFTA. A recent open letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk signed by a number of activist groups is asking that any negotiated TPP restrict intellectual property provisions. In addition, they are urging that accession or adherence to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) not be a requirement of the deal. If things are to change, the TPP will also need to include strong environmental and labour protections and exclude harmful NAFTA investor-to-state lawsuit provisions, as well as financial service deregulation.

In June, the second round of negotiations for the TPP were held in San Francisco. Significant progress was made as discussions examined goals for improving and expanding the partnership. This includes clarifying, “the relationship between existing FTAs and the TPP by agreeing member economies would continue current FTA requirements while adhering to any higher TPP standards. That determination lays the foundation for how TPP economies will precede in future negotiations.” Working groups also addressed a wide range of topics such as agricultural products, business mobility, cross-border services, intellectual property protection, financial services and technical barriers to trade, along with other issues. The next round of talks are scheduled to take place from October 4-9 in Brunei. Since the Obama administration recommitted to the TPP last year, negotiations have gained momentum and an agreement could be signed in 2012. Although the TPP is not technically part of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), it is seen as the potential foundation for creating one of its goals of a region-wide free trade area.

In November 2011, APEC leaders will gather in Hawaii where the U.S. could plot a bolder vision for the forum. According to a Statement by the Press Secretary, “The United States will use the opportunity of chairing APEC in 2011 to highlight the vast potential the Asia-Pacific region holds for American companies and workers, to help shape the future of Asia-Pacific's regional architecture, and to promote APEC's core mission of spurring mutually beneficial regional economic integration.” This year’s APEC Leaders summit will take place in Yokohama, Japan this November. The Meeting of APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade which was held several months back, commended the work that had been undertaken in key areas of regional economic integration. This includes sectors such as standards and technical regulations, investment, trade facilitation, rules of origin, intellectual property rights, as well as environmental goods and services. They also welcomed progress made to explore possible pathways to achieve a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific.

Earlier this year, Kurt M. Campbell Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs made it clear that the U.S. seeks to play a more prominent role in the region. In a Statement on Regional Overview of East Asia and the Pacific he emphasized, “In every regard - geopolitically, militarily, diplomatically, and economically - Asia and the Pacific are indispensable to addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of the 21st century. As the Asia-Pacific century emerges, defining the new international environment, the United States must enhance and deepen its strategic engagement and leadership role in the region.” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recent Remarks on U.S. Foreign Policy before the Council on Foreign Relations also lays out America’s strategy. She stated, “the Asia-Pacific currently has few robust institutions to foster effective cooperation and reduce the friction of competition, so we began building a more coherent regional architecture with the United States deeply involved.” Clinton also added, “the Asia-Pacific region will grow in importance and developing these institutions will establish habits of cooperation that will be vital to stability and prosperity.”

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has become one of the main vehicles for integration in the region. In a Statement By President Obama at the Opening Of the U.S.-ASEAN Leaders Meeting which took place in New York on September 24, he acknowledged that, “Through APEC and initiatives like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we’re pursuing trade relationships that benefit all our countries. And we will continue to support ASEAN’s goal of creating a more effective and integrated community by 2015.” He went on to say, “We’ll also focus on deepening our political and security cooperation.” ASEAN has become a dominant group and is poised to play a crucial role in the vision for an Asia-Pacific Union. Further engagement in regards to evolving regional architecture is really the struggle for more influence. Gaining more control in Asia-Pacific is important from a geopolitical, economic and military standpoint. As it continues to grow, the U.S. seeks to play an active role in shaping the region.

During a trip to Asia last year, Obama proclaimed himself to be America's first Pacific President and noted the importance of, "multilateral organizations (that) can advance the security and prosperity of this region." He also asserted, “As an Asia Pacific nation, the United States expects to be involved in the discussions that shape the future of this region, and to participate fully in appropriate organizations as they are established and evolve." American economic, political and military expansion in Asia-Pacific is being used to counter growing Chinese influence. The U.S. continues to strengthen old alliances and forge new partnerships. Through various joint security exercises, it has increased its military presence in the area. With the U.S. and China vying for more control, this could further escalate tensions and lead to a potential confrontation between the two powers.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Expanding U.S.-Canada Security and Economic Partnership

2010-09-13T12:02:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

In recent years, U.S.-Canada border issues have been overshadowed by concerns surrounding illegal immigration and drug violence on the southern border. Earlier this summer, both countries agreed to work towards a more joint approach to border security aimed at addressing common threats and promoting economic cooperation.

In July, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, “met to advance a strategic dialogue on developing a shared vision for border security for Canada and the United States—one that will enhance security and resilience against common threats, while bolstering competitiveness and job creation.” A number of initiatives were announced, including an agreement to complete a joint threat and risk assessment which, “addresses drug trafficking and illegal immigration, the illicit movement of prohibited or controlled goods, agricultural hazards, and the spread of infectious disease.” In addition, a memorandum of understanding on cross-border currency seizures and information sharing was signed that, “will help to identify potential threats and assist in money-laundering and terrorist-financing investigations and prosecutions.” Increasingly, Canada is being pressured to further take on U.S. security priorities in an effort to keep trade flowing across the northern border.

Secretary Napolitano and Minister Toews also reached an agreement to safeguard and respond to disruptions of shared infrastructure that connect the two nations such as roads, power grids and bridges. The Canada-U.S. Action Plan for Critical Infrastructure is designed to, “strengthen the safety, security and resiliency of Canada and the United States by establishing a comprehensive cross-border approach to critical infrastructure resilience.” This includes building partnerships, improved information sharing, as well as risk management aimed at increasing the ability to prepare for emergencies like a terrorist attack or a natural disaster. The action plan is part of ongoing cross-border collaboration and builds off a recent deal reached between the Canadian federal and provincial governments in regards to protecting local infrastructure. It also appears to be linked to the Civil Assistance Plan signed by the U.S.-Canadian military in 2008, which allows the armed forces of one nation to support the other during a civil emergency.

In April, Minister of International Trade Peter Van Loan was in Washington, D.C to promote deeper Canada-U.S. ties. He met with U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and they agreed to hold twice-annual trade meetings to enhance bilateral relations. In July, they met in Ottawa to discuss greater economic cooperation and the need to avoid protectionism. Through NAFTA, both nations economies are already intimately interrelated. and integrated. While some advocate more trade between the two partners as the answer to strengthening their respective economies, it was recently reported that Canada’s trade deficit increased by a record level in July. This is related in large part to its dependence on the struggling American economy.

At the trade meetings in Ottawa several months back, Minister Van Loan and Ambassador Kirk also addressed the Canada–U.S. Agreement on Government Procurement. The deal resolved the Buy American issue and is essentially an extension of NAFTA. Some believe that it is an important step in providing protection for future bilateral trade relations, but in the process it opens up provincial and municipal contracts to foreign corporations. The 5th round of negotiations between Canada and the European Union (EU) on a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) will take place in October. One of the EU’s top objectives includes gaining access to procurement and services in areas of health, energy, water, as well as other sectors. The Canada-U.S. Buy American deal could be used to further reinforce EU demands. While Canada needs to lessen its dependence on the U.S. economy, there are concerns that CETA will be based on the failed NAFTA trade model.

The report Skating on Thin Ice: Canadian-American Relations in 2010 and 2011 released earlier this year and authored by Alexander Moens of the Fraser Institute, praised the Canada-U.S. agreement on government procurement. It suggested the deal, “should encourage free traders on both sides of the line to continue pressing for deeper economic cooperation.” Considering the bilateral discussions and initiatives which have progressed in the last several months, it appears as if this forecast was indeed correct. The report also emphasized that, “Canada and the United States need to pursue deeper trade integration in such areas as regulatory harmonization, common external tariffs on manufactured products, free trade in agricultural products, and an overall energy and environmental accord.” For the U.S. to be more receptive to increased trade and investment, it recommends establishing a, “unified regime to deal with a common security threat.” In order for deeper economic integration to move forward, Canada will be further pressed to adopt a single security strategy dominated by American interests. This poses a serious threat to its sovereignty.

The trilateral framework remains intact, but NAFTA partners at least for the time being, are pursuing a more bilateral agenda for advancing continental integration. This seems to be drawing less attention. The current approach is due in part to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America being exposed and discredited. It is interesting to note that there has yet to be an announcement concerning this year’s edition of the North American Leaders Summit introduced in 2005 with the launching of the SPP. Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s separate trips to the U.S. to meet with President Barack Obama and to Canada to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper back in May, might have served as this year’s version of the leaders summit. Calderón used the state visits as an opportunity to strengthen NAFTA ties and promote deeper North American economic integration.

The SPP appears to be dead in name only as some of its key priorities continue through other initiatives. It remains the blueprint for further expanding NAFTA. Continental integration is a permanent agenda and the vision for a North American Union has not been abandoned.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
Passing on the Mantle of Deep North American Integration
U.S.- Canada Border Security and Military Integration
A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon
Strengthening NAFTA Ties and the Push Towards a Common Security Front

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

FLASHBACK: The United Nations: Our Children’s New Parents?

2010-08-30T07:36:00.000-07:00

(Originally published in March of 2009)

By Dana Gabriel

Through its various agencies and treaties, the United Nations seeks to undermine individual, as well as national sovereignty. It has been almost 15 years since President Clinton signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The U.S. remains one of the last holdouts as the treaty lies dormant, yet to be ratified. The UNCRC grants children new civil, social, cultural and economic rights that could override parental decisions. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), is pushing for a vote as there is a real sense that under an Obama presidency, the UNCRC could finally be ratified.

If the UNCRC is ratified, parents could be prohibited from homeschooling and spanking their children. It undermines parental authority and gives more power to the state to further dictate how children are raised. It grants children dangerous new rights thus encouraging more rebellious behavior. The truth is that in many cases, children do not have the wisdom and maturity to make sound decisions. The treaty also gives children the mechanism by which they could dispute any parental judgment. The UNCRC transfers more parental authority to the state while granting children radical new rights.

Under the UNCRC, an 18-member committee has been established to review children’s rights and any other disputes that might arise. In many cases, we are already bound by international treaties and the UNCRC gives unaccountable UN bureaucrats the power to make decisions concerning our children’s well-being. Parents are being demoted to simple caregivers, while the state assumes the role of the prime authoritative figure. The UNCRC is an assault on parental authority and is essentially a blank check for governmental interference in family matters. It is meant to further promote child autonomy and freedom from parental guidance.

In the U.S., homeschooling numbers continue to rise as a growing number of parents look to better control their child’s moral instruction. Under the UNCRC, homeschooling could be interpreted as a violation of a child’s well being. Some states have tried to ban and outlaw homeschooling and the UNCRC could make it a UN-sponsored activity. Public school education is designed to correct any perceived errors in rearing and home training. The ideology of globalism and world government is at the very core of the educational system. The UN seeks to undermine parental authority, traditional values and biblical principles. They wish to gain more control over our children’s upbringing and education.

Under the guise of human rights, the UN agenda is to further breakup the family. At recent meetings held in Mexico City, United Nations Population Fund representative, Arie Hoekman, told participants that high divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births were not a social crisis, but instead a triumph for human rights. Traditional values and principles instilled by parents, are being manipulated and pushed aside. The breakdown of the family is bringing about a rise in new values. Children’s love and loyalty to their family and country is being systematically destroyed. Under a new global order, there is no room for nationalism or individuality and a strong family unit represents a threat to this system.

Being a parent is a huge responsibility and undertaking that should not be taken lightly. Parents are not always right and some may be unfit. The reality is that children thrive in an environment where there is love and structure which includes consequences for their behavior. The UNCRC infringes upon parental authority and represents a massive intrusion by the state into family affairs. It has the potential to radically alter parent-child relationships. The UN definitely has no business telling parents how to raise their children and neither does the government unless there is evidence of neglect or abuse. The UN is a morally bankrupt institution with a horrible record of protecting human rights around the world and the U.S ratifying the UNCRC will not change that.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Dusting Off The UN Law Of The Sea Treaty
UN Treaties Fail to Respect American Sovereignty and the Constitution

Further Reading
Senators line up to tell U.N. to leave kids alone
Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children’s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights ‘Over to International Community’

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

NORAD-Russian Joint Air Drill, Bomber Incursions and Canada’s F-35 Jet Purchase

2010-08-22T10:37:00.001-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Russian Federation Air Force conducted a cooperative air defense exercise from August 8-11 that focused on combating terrorism.

Vigilant Eagle was hailed as a milestone exercise between the Cold War era rivals. It included Russian, U.S., along with Canadian Air Force personnel operating from command centers inside Russia and the United States directing fighter jets, as well as civilian air traffic controllers. It took several years to stage the drill which centered around, “an international air terrorism scenario exercised over the Pacific Ocean consisting of forces from the U.S. and Russia responding to the simulated hijacking of a B-757 en route to the Far East.” The joint exercise was, “designed to establish clear communication processes that would allow the two forces to work together during a real crisis.” Russian Air Force Col. Alexander Vasilyev emphasized the importance of cooperation in combating the dangers of air terrorism. He stated, “Terrorism is something that affects all our countries. So it is very important that we work together to develop procedures and bring the relationship between our countries closer together to unite our countries in the fight against terrorism.”

In April, it was announced that, “NATO and Russia have begun a testing phase of a joint system for air traffic coordination. This will be the first NATO-Russia system of this kind to be fielded. The system focuses primarily on the fight against terrorism and will provide a shared radar picture of air traffic and early notification of suspicious air activities.” The report entitled the Moscow Metro Bombings and Terrorism in Russia also addresses the possibility of developing further practical NATO-Russia cooperation in regards to terrorism. President Barack Obama has called for Russia and the U.S. to further deepen collaboration on security and anti-terrorism matters. In May, the Associated Press reported that, “Obama told a Russian television station that no single country can defeat terrorists who have attacked targets throughout the world. He said he looks forward to ‘increasing cooperation between the United States and Russia’ on fighting terrorism.” Despite any past or present tension between the two countries, the seemingly endless shadowy war on terrorism has provided a common enemy and demonstrated how the global conflict can at times make strange bedfellows.

The recent NORAD-Russian air drill was preceded by an incident where Canadian fighter jets repelled two long-range Russian bombers off the coast of Labrador near the Arctic. Russia contends the flight was simply a training mission and deny trying to enter Canadian airspace. They maintain that the Canadian military was aware of the exercise contrary to Defence minister Peter MacKay who insists that they were not notified. NORAD fighters have intercepted between 12 and 18 bombers annually since 2007. In advance of President Obama’s visit to Canada back in February of 2009, Canadian fighter jets were scrambled to head off Russian bombers approaching its airspace. Prime Minster Stephen Harper promised that Canada would defend its airspace and sovereignty by responding every time the Russians make any kind of intrusion into its Arctic territory. At times, Canada and Russia have both been guilty of a war of words in regards to Arctic sovereignty. The latest so-called Russian bomber incursion appears to be nothing more than an attempt by the Conservative government to capitalize on the event to further its political interests.

The Harper government is using the most recent confrontation between Canadian and Russian military planes to justify its plans to buy 65 new jet fighters and draw attention to its stance on Arctic sovereignty. In July, the Canadian government announced plans to acquire the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II which will replace its fleet of CF-18 Hornets. The first F-35’s are expected to be delivered by 2016. Including maintenance of the fighter jets, the total price tag is expected to cost Canadian taxpayers over $16 billion. The government insists they are getting the best aircraft for the best value. Some have questioned the purchase considering Canada is running its largest deficit in history. The Liberal party has been critical of the deal and its lack of transparency. Not to mention that one of Canada's biggest military acquisitions was done without a single competing bid. The Conservatives argue that they exercised options and that the F-35 was the only next-generation fighter plane that meets the operational requirements of the Canadian Forces. They continue to defend their decision making a case that the new jets are part of its obligation to its allies and will protect Canada's sovereignty well into the future.

Controversy has surrounded Canadian Defence Department computers being used to alter online Wikipedia entries. This includes the removal of some information which was critical of the Harper government's decision to spend billions on the new F-35 stealth jet. The New Democrats are demanding answers. NDP MP Claude Gravelle stated, “At worst this type of manipulative behaviour is indicative of the government’s culture of information control.” He went on to say, “Even if this apparent misuse of resources is the work of a lone DND staffer ‘freelancing,’ it raises questions about oversight in that department.” Defence Department computers were also used to insert insults on Wikipedia aimed at the Liberals who have questioned the jet aircraft purchase. Gravelle also added, “Some of the comments posted regarding Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and the media were particularly worrisome. We do not expect to see this type of big brother behaviour in Canada. Unfortunately Canadians are starting to see a pattern in the desire to control the message.” This illustrates how web based institutions such as Wikipedia can act as gatekeepers and be used to spread propaganda in an effort to guide public perception.

It is expected that the Commons Standing Committee on Defence will hold hearings near the end of August on the Conservative’s proposed purchase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Liberals remain critical of the plan and have said that if they form the next government, they would put the contract on hold until further review. In the end, they would approve it. The truth is that on most major issues there is hardly a difference between the Liberals and Conservatives and they differ on rhetoric alone. Even the Globe and Mail had a recent headline Tories and Grits are as one on defence policy. Both parties have advanced North American integration through NAFTA, the Security and Prosperity Partnership and other initiatives. They have also supported Canada’s mission in Afghanistan which is slated to end in 2011, but could be extended. In the coming years, Canada could be asked to play a bigger role in the war on terrorism, including participation in future American and NATO military operations. Many would like to see a return to its more traditional role as a peacekeeping nation, one which has garnered praise from the rest of the world.

Whether or not the majority of Canadians support the government’s decision to purchase the new F-35 jets, it does represent a continued commitment to NATO and NORAD. It is also closely tied to deeper U.S.-Canada military integration and a North American security perimeter.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Future U.S.-Canada Joint Arctic Security and Control
A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon
The War on Terrorism and the Countdown to the 2010 Olympics

Further reading
New F35’s For North American Security Integration
Stealth fighter in Canadian Wikipedia brouhaha
New fighter jets have no 'useful military role'

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

FLASHBACK: Dusting Off The UN Law Of The Sea Treaty

2010-07-30T13:16:00.000-07:00

(Originally published on March 19, 2009)

By Dana Gabriel

The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is another one of those international agreements that the U.S. has yet to ratify. President Reagan rejected the treaty, but a revised version was signed by President Clinton in 1994. As a result of intense opposition, LOST was never brought before the Senate for a full vote. Several failed attempts were also later made by the Bush administration to galvanize support for the accord. The Democrats are now laying the groundwork to finally ratify LOST. Proponents view ratifying the treaty as an opportunity for the U.S. to further promote global security and stability. Critics maintain that under LOST, the U.S. would be forced to surrender more sovereignty to the UN.

LOST is the legal framework by which all activities on, over, and under the world’s oceans are to be governed. It would place 70% of the earth’s surface under UN control. In his past article entitled LOST at Sea, Congressman Ron Paul writes, “Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an International Seabed Authority would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.” Many argue that if the U.S. does not ratify LOST, they might lose out on the mad dash for Arctic resources. Critics contend that under the treaty, the U.S. would be forced to obtain UN permission before conducting ocean development, which would make any new activities that much more difficult and costly.

The International Seabed Authority would have the power to set production control for ocean mining, drilling and fishing. They would also regulate ocean exploration, issue permits, charge fees and settle disputes within its own court system. Under LOST, an international tribunal has been established made up of a panel of 21 UN judges who have the power to enforce treaty provisions and rulings. Ratifying LOST would further place U.S. interests at the mercy of international courts whose decisions could override domestic laws.

In the same article on LOST, Ron Paul also states that, “The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists.” LOST is closely integrated with other treaties, such as the Convention on Climate Change and it could be used as a backdoor for global taxation. Ratifying LOST could facilitate the ability of environmental organizations to sue the U.S., using international courts. Under the guise of protecting the environment, the UN is gaining more control over individuals and nation-states alike.

A recent incident in the South China Sea between a U.S. military intelligence ship and several Chinese vessels, has prompted accusations from both sides. The Americans insist that the Chinese were harassing the U.S. ship and were in violation of international law. In turn, China condemned U.S. actions as being illegal and in violation of LOST, as well other laws and regulations. China has ratified LOST and it appears as if their interpretation of the treaty is being used as a means to try and ban all foreign military ships from operating inside its 200 mile exclusive economic zone. The U.S. ratifying LOST would not prevent any such future incidents, but rather could serve to limit its military intelligence operations. LOST could severely compromise America’s ability to move freely on the high seas.

The United Nations cannot be trusted in protecting American interests. Under LOST, the U.S. would only have one vote, unlike the UN Security Council where it enjoys veto power. UN bureaucracy has proven to be a breeding ground for corruption. It would be unwise to hand over any control of the oceans, oil, gas and minerals to the UN. The last thing the U.S. needs to do is surrender more sovereignty.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
The United Nations: Our Children’s New Parents?
UN Treaties Fail to Respect American Sovereignty and the Constitution

Further reading
National Ocean Council
Obama Complies with Agenda 21 and Expands Federal Power

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Future U.S.-Canada Joint Arctic Security and Control

2010-06-29T16:48:00.001-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

The Arctic has been the subject of dispute between Canada, Denmark, the U.S., Russia and Norway with each country taking steps to expand their scientific research and military presence. Its vast untapped oil, natural gas and mineral resources represent a tremendous economic potential, but control of the region is also important from a strategic standpoint. Increased cooperation and military integration could be used to further secure interests in the area. Canada and Denmark recently signed an agreement which will promote defence and security collaboration in the Arctic. In August, Canadian Forces operations in the far North will include Danish and American participation. There are also calls for U.S.-Canada joint security of North America’s Arctic waters and skies.

Canada continues to assert its military presence in its northernmost boundaries. Operation Nunalivut which ran in the Arctic from April 6-26, is one of three sovereignty exercises conducted each year by Canadian Forces (CF). This year’s joint maneuvers included, “the first landing and takeoff of an Air Force CC-177 Globemaster III aircraft at CFS Alert, from a gravel and ice covered airfield and the first CF dive in the high Arctic, which was the longest sustained ice dive operation in CF history. In addition, the Arctic Response Company Group conducted concurrent training with the Canadian Rangers for the first time in the Arctic, while a team of nine Regular and Reserve Force Signallers tested a new series of Iridium, high frequency and satellite communication systems.” As part of ongoing efforts by Canada-Denmark to strengthen diplomatic and security relations in the Arctic, the operation featured, “combined training with the Danish military’s SIRIUS Dog Sledge patrol.” An agreement reached between Russia and Norway over the long-disputed area in the Barents Sea has also prompted Canada to take steps to settle conflicting Arctic offshore boundary claims with the U.S. and Denmark.

In May, Canada and Denmark signed a Memorandum of Understanding that will deepen defence and security cooperation in the Arctic, “through enhanced consultation, information exchange, visits, and exercises.” The annual joint Canadian Forces Operation Nanook will take place in the high Arctic from August 6-28. It is significant as it will include ships from the Danish and American navies, as well as the U.S. Coast Guard. Canada also recently announced measures designed to further protect and defend its northern sovereignty. “Beginning July 1, the Government of Canada is requiring that foreign and domestic vessels of a certain size report to the Canadian Coast Guard if travelling through Canada’s Arctic waters. This new mandatory requirement will ensure vessels report information such as identity, position and destination to the Canadian Coast Guard.” There has been much contention over the Northwest Passage. Canada maintains that it is an internal waterway and thus falls under its control, but the U.S. argues that it is an international strait. There are calls for the U.S and Canada to essentially suspend their disagreement over the northern sea route and assume joint continental management and security of the Arctic.

A new report titled Open Canada: A Global Positioning Strategy for a Networked Age put out by the Canadian International Council, contains a section on Arctic issues. One of its key proposals is that, “Canada share responsibility with the U.S. for control of North America’s Arctic waters and skies through an expanded NORAD. This extends to search-and-rescue as well as joint monitoring, air patrols and icebreaker operations.” The policy paper emphasizes, “Canada has a responsibility to beef up its security capabilities in the Arctic, but it is not going to win an arms race, if it comes to that.” It also admits, “closer Canada–U.S. security cooperation in the Arctic could place strains on other members of the Arctic Council. But a bilateral security arrangement between well-established defence partners in their sector of the Arctic is justifiable. It serves our national interest in the North and deepens our relationship with the U.S. and will ultimately be accepted by the others.” Not only does this threaten Canadian sovereignty and expand military integration with the U.S., but it encourages the further militarization of the Arctic.

A recent editorial from the Globe and Mail warns that, “Inviting the United States to assume responsibility for patrolling Canada's Arctic waters, as a new report from the Canadian International Council proposes, is a bit like inviting a fox to guard the henhouse.” It goes on to say the recommendation, “is really a call for the U.S. to assume responsibility for the security of Canada's Arctic, since the might of the superpower would inevitably relegate Canada to the status of junior partner when it tried asserting its sovereignty.” Anyone who doubts U.S. intentions in the Arctic need not look any further than National Security Directives established under President George W. Bush. It acknowledges that, “The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. These interests include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight.” Further control of the Arctic is important from a geopolitical, economic, and military standpoint.

In the last number of years, Russia has asserted itself in the high Arctic by sending bomber patrols, as well as warships and submarines into the region. At times, Russian and Canadian rhetoric in regards to Arctic sovereignty, has been reminiscent of the Cold War era. Increasing diplomatic efforts is the key to building the foundation for more multilateral cooperation in the area. Unfortunately, it appears as if the military build-up of the far North will continue. Canada has taken on the role of an Arctic power, but with the assurance of U.S. and NATO support. Enhanced security collaboration between U.S-Canada and other northern allies is an essential part of America’s Arctic strategy. Military expansion could limit attempts by other nations to gain more influence in the region. The scramble for resources and the further militarization of the Arctic make it a potential flashpoint for conflict.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Strengthening NAFTA Ties and the Push Towards a Common Security Front

2010-06-07T16:11:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

As a result of the demise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, the NAFTA trilateral relationship has suffered. This has forced many of the SPP’s objectives to be funneled through various bilateral initiatives. Mexico’s drug war is also serving as a catalyst for more North American cooperation and integration in areas of border security, law enforcement and the military. Canada is being encouraged to further engage and commit itself alongside the U.S. in helping Mexico.

Some have described the Canada-Mexico partnership as a failed opportunity with Ottawa more preoccupied with U.S. concerns. Mexican President Felipe Calderón’s recent trip to Canada was seen as a chance to strengthen bilateral bonds and push for more trade and investment between the two NAFTA partners. In a press statement Calderón highlighted, “The reason for this visit is to consolidate and expand our bilateral relationship at all levels.” While addressing a joint session of Parliament, he called for closer ties with Canada and the United States. He emphasized that, “Integration is key to restoring strong sustained growth in North America.” Calderón characterized Mexico as a, “valuable neighbor and a strategic partner for the future of North America's prosperity.” His message was clear as he championed the need for deeper economic integration and warned against protectionism. Also on the agenda was North American security as Canada is being called upon to expand and deepen cooperation with Mexico on police and judicial issues.

At the 2009 North American Leaders Summit, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that Canada was working with the U.S. and Mexico in the fight against drug trafficking and transnational organized crime. He launched the Anti-Crime Capacity Building Program which will invest $15 million per year and, “expand Canadian law enforcement and criminal justice capacity building assistance to targeted states in the Americas. Assistance will be provided for projects that reflect Canada's policy priorities and obligations within the key international anti-crime conventions. This includes illicit drugs, corruption, human trafficking, money laundering, security system reform and crime prevention.” Under the program, Canada has already provided RCMP personnel and funding to help train Mexican Federal police. During Calderón’s recent visit, “Canada and Mexico also announced several (other) anti-crime capacity building projects that the Government of Canada will be undertaking to support Mexico’s robust and ongoing efforts to combat corruption and reform its legal system. This includes training for Mexican judges and lawyers and a harmonization of Mexico’s criminal law.”

An updated air transport agreement, as well as a number of other bilateral initiatives were also reached during Calderón’s state visit to Canada. In addition, there was a Memorandum of Understanding on Youth Mobility which, “will simplify and facilitate the administrative procedures for qualified Canadian and Mexican youth, aged 18 to 29, to travel and work in each other’s country for up to one year.” This could be a precursor to a larger labour mobility agreement. Canada and Mexico signed a Joint Action Plan aimed at, “fostering competitive and sustainable economies, protecting our citizens, enhancing people-to-people Contacts and projecting our partnership globally and regionally.” Harper proclaimed, “We are setting the stage for the next decade of growth and cooperation between our two countries,” He went on to say, “The initiatives signed today demonstrate that we are deepening our relations in a wide number of areas that will benefit both our peoples.”

Before his trip to Canada, Calderón was in Washington to meet with President Barack Obama where border security and Mexico’s drug war were high on the agenda. He was very critical of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 which allows police to question and detain suspects who can't prove citizenship. The Obama administration has threatened a legal challenge to the new law. The bill is the result of growing frustration over the lack of immigration enforcement. Other states are looking to pass similar legislation in efforts to curb illegal immigration. Perhaps feeling the heat, Obama recently announced plans to send 1,200 troops to U.S.-Mexico border to counter cross-border drug and weapons trafficking. The move was seen by some as more of a symbolic gesture and a political ploy to try and win over Republican support for immigration reform. It was later reported that the National Guard soldiers would not be used to stop illegal immigration. Former U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo acknowledged, “The desire is not to fix the problem. The desire is to have amnesty. All of this is in anticipation of amnesty.” Many aspects concerning comprehensive U.S. immigration reform are closely tied to a common perimeter approach to border management and security which could later include harmonization of immigration and customs standards.

While addressing a joint meeting of Congress, Calderón said, “Mexico is a country in transformation. This is making us an even more strategic partner for the future prosperity of the American people. The world is more global and more interconnected every day. It is also divided into large economic regions. Those regions that maximize their comparative advantages will be the ones that succeed. And we both need to compete with Asia and with Europe. Mexico and the United States are stronger together than they are apart.” He also added, “So I invite you to work with Mexico and consolidate North America as the most competitive region in the world.” A joint statement by the leaders declared that, “The bilateral dialogue between Presidents Obama and Calderón underscores their commitment to strengthening the strategic partnership between both countries, and they will continue working closely together in bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral fora over the coming months, as befitting two partners and nations uniquely important for the well-being, prosperity and security of one another.” Calderón used his visits to the U.S. and Canada to boost NAFTA relations. He was not shy about his wish for deeper North American integration and although the defunct SPP was not mentioned by name, many of its goals were front and center.

In a recent article Manuel Pérez-Rocha of the Institute for Policy Studies stated, “While Obama has written off the infamous, Bush-led Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, its main elements persist in today's bilateral relations. Some of the terminology has changed: the ‘smart border,’ for example, is now the ‘21st-century border.’ However, U.S. priorities continue to be deregulating trade, enforcing intellectual property rights, and guaranteeing ‘energy security in North America’ to meet the energy needs of the United States.” Manuel went on to say, “The United States has channeled more than $1.3 billion into security operations in Mexico. Although violence in Mexico continues to soar, claiming more than 23,000 lives since Calderón took office, the Obama administration continues to back Calderón's failed military strategy to curb drug trafficking.” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently admitted that the U.S. military has been working inside Mexico alongside Mexican armed forces in the battle against drug cartels. Under Obama, the Merida Initiative which has its roots in the SPP has continued and expanded cooperation in regards to common security threats.

Increasingly, Mexico’s drug war is being seen as a continental problem that requires continental solutions which is further pushing the NAFTA partnership into a common security front. This is escalating the militarization of the borders, integration in areas of law enforcement and the military, as well as advancing the development of a North American security perimeter. Some believe that a common security perimeter would be a more effective way of safeguarding North America while ensuring the free flow of trade, investment and labour. This would force Canada and Mexico to take on more U.S. security priorities and further place them at the mercy of American foreign policy. A continental security perimeter would be another incremental step in the creation of a North American Union.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon
U.S.-Canada Border Security and Military Integration
The SPP and Merging Military Command Structures
Passing on the Mantle of Deep North American Integration

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

The Toronto G20 Police State Crackdown

2010-05-23T16:20:00.001-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

It appears as if the G20 summit in Toronto is shaping up to be a showdown between anarchists and police. Caught in the middle of the security circus are local residents. If there is violence and property damage, peaceful protesters will also be demonized. The recent bombing of a bank, perpetrated by a so-called anarchist group, has given an excuse to enact more police state measures during the summit. The curious timing of the attack emphasizes the threat of terrorism and further justifies the huge security apparatus being assembled.

A group calling itself FFFC-Ottawa has claimed responsibility for the recent firebombing of a Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) branch. It was targeted because of the RBC’s sponsorship of the Vancouver Winter Olympic Games, as well as its role in financing Alberta’s tar sands projects. The group has threatened to make an appearance at the meetings. “On June 25-27 2010, the G8/G20 ‘leaders’ and bankers are meeting in Huntsville and Toronto to make decisions that will further their policies of exploitation of people and the environment. We will be there.” Some have labelled the bombing as an act of domestic terrorism and have compared the radical anarchist community to terrorist groups. There are fears that the incident might inspire copycat attacks. With Toronto set to play host to the G20, it has become a national security issue. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service recently warned of homegrown terror in Canada. It is also interesting to note that in an effort to revive post-9/11 powers in late April, the Conservative government introduced the Combating Terrorism Act.

The G20 Integrated Security Unit continues to monitor any potential threats. Police are now asking truck drivers and carriers to act as lookouts before and during the G8/G20 summits. This includes reporting on suspicious behaviour or irregular activity in regards to terrorism, extremists, anarchists, public order (protests), along with any other threats. There are already various programs training citizens to fight terrorism and crime which are part of ongoing efforts to create a domestic spying system. It is unclear if the recent bombing was an isolated incident or part of a trend that could lead to more domestic political violence in Canada. Many likeminded individuals and groups have tried to distance themselves from FFFC-Ottawa while others have defended their actions. There is speculation that the attack might have been a false flag operation carried out by agent provocateurs to blame anarchists and give police a reason to further ramp up security. Some anarchists are still vowing to disrupt the meetings with threats of confronting the police state and the corporate culture.

Queen’s Park North is now the location of the designated demonstration area during the G20 summit. It was changed after residents opposed a plan to use Trinity-Bellwoods Park. Some activists reject the notion of an official protest site, but if they choose to gather elsewhere it could lead to arrests. Ultimately, police tactics and behaviour will play a big part in determining the outcome of any protests. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated, “Freedom of expression is protected throughout Canada: our country, and all of Toronto is a ‘free speech zone.’ Protesters cannot be prevented from demonstrating outside of the‘designated demonstration area,’ particularly when the area set aside is situated in a place that is so remote from the meetings that protesters cannot be directly seen or heard by the leaders." All protesters voices need to be heard, but they must remain peaceful as any violence will taint their message and provoke a police response.

In support of preparations for the G8/G20 summits, there has been more security drills In early May, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) conducted Exercise Amalgam Virgo which involved military aircraft flying at low altitudes over the south-central Ontario region. With the meetings fast approaching, additional security measures are being implemented across Toronto. Over 70 new CCTV cameras are being installed throughout the city’s downtown core. Due to security concerns, the CN Tower will be closed to the public during the summit. The Toronto Blue Jays series has also been moved to Philadelphia for security reasons. Police are expected to release more details about the size of the planned security zone within the next week. It was already announced that there will be an outer and inner security perimeter. As a result of the bank bombing, there are calls for an extra 500 police for the event. This is on top of the over 5000 officers who will be deployed, along with thousands of private security personnel and an unspecified number of Canadian soldiers. A Toronto Police Accountability Bulletin proclaimed, “In the name of security, the police are being given a very free hand with the city.”

The G20 summit will undoubtedly promote globalization and advance the goals of world government. This will benefit bankers and multinational corporations at the expense of the poor and middle class. The fact that it is being held in Toronto signifies that Canada is further falling under the control of the new world order system. The event will provide a perfect opportunity to push the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement currently being negotiated. Canada has fared better then most countries during the current financial crisis, but deeper economic ties with Europe could prove disastrous. In many ways, the whole security operations for the G8/G20 summits are a sideshow designed to serve as a distraction. Any violence and mayhem before or during the meetings plays right into the globalists hands and will be used to justify a police state crackdown.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit
Advancing the Transatlantic Agenda
Police State Canada 2010 and the Olympic Crackdown
The War on Terrorism and the Countdown to the 2010 Olympics
Police State Canada 2010 and the Dark Side of the Olympics

Further reading
Ottawa Bank Torched: Direct Action of False Flag?
Police State Toronto: Terror Drill Caught On Tape
Press For Truth Arrested While Reporting On The G20 Summit
Downtown Toronto To Be Transformed Into Locked-Down Police State This Summer

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Image by CasaZaza

Police State 4: The Rise Of FEMA

Police State Canada 2010 and the G20 Summit

2010-04-26T13:24:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

The G20 summit will be held on June 26-27 at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre preceded by the G8 summit which will take place in Huntsville, Ontario. The secretive meetings will be attended by world leaders, finance ministers, central bank governors, along with thousands of other delegates. It will be the largest security event in Canadian history exceeding the Vancouver Winter Olympics. Downtown Toronto will be turned into a security fortress with fences, barricades, checkpoints and street closures thus greatly affecting local residents. While the G8/G20 summits will attract their share of peaceful protesters, other more radical and fringe elements may try to capitalize on the event. Agent provocateurs might also be used whose actions could then justify a police crackdown and as a means to demonize all demonstrators. The G20 summit will deepen police state measures, as well as further integrate local, provincial, federal law enforcement agencies and the military.

Security for the upcoming G20 summit will be the responsibility of the Integrated Security Unit, “comprised of the RCMP, the OPP (in the G8 context), the Canadian Forces, Toronto Police Service, Peel Regional Police and other law enforcement and security experts who will work collaboratively.” Ed Boltuc, a member of the G20 planning team for the Toronto Police Service stated, “The Olympics that you saw recently in Vancouver was actually the largest security event ever to take place here in Canada. The G20/G8 surpasses that completely.” He went on to say, “There’s going to be a massive — absolutely massive — presence of police and security on the ground like you’ve never seen before.” The Globe and Mail reported that as many as 10,000 uniformed officers, along with a 1,000 private security guards will be deployed together with an unspecified number of Canadian soldiers. Foreign dignitaries attending the meetings will also have their own security detail. The federal government security costs are expected to top $179 million.

As part of the operation, a two fenced security perimeter will encircle the Metro Convention Centre and nearby hotels where delegates will be staying. The RCMP are entrusted with protecting the inner security zone which will be controlled by a 3-metre-high unscalable fence, as well as five levels of security screening. Toronto police will be in charge of the outer zone and will deal with any protests beyond the perimeter. Canadian Forces responsibilities involve, “large-scale operational planning, land and air surveillance, underwater safety and security for the venues and some logistic and ceremonial functions. Support also includes drawing on the CF’s ongoing partnership in the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD).” Heightened security will begin two weeks before the summit. In order to gain access to the outer security zone, residents and workers will need to be registered or accredited. Designated free speech zones will also be put in place for demonstrators. Toronto Police have announced that they will be using an old movie studio as a temporary jail to house unruly protesters during the event.

The G8/G20 summits have become a platform for protests on issues such as social justice, anti-globalization and the environment. A government website section entitled Information for Demonstrators points out that freedoms of opinion, expression and peaceful assembly guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not limitless. The Criminal Code of Canada contains provisions that limit certain activities including blocking or obstructing a highway, causing a disturbance, mischief, riots, unlawful assembly, breach of the peace and others. Some of these laws could be subjectively enforced and just as government grants you rights, they can just as easily take them away. Most protesters will probably remain peaceful, but some groups and individuals might have different ideas. In the past, police have been caught using provocateurs at rallies and activists need to be mindful of those who may attempt to infiltrate their ranks and engage in unlawful behaviour. Council of Canadians spokesman Dylan Penner wants the government to promise it will not use agents provocateurs like it did at North American Leaders Summit in Montebello, Quebec, back in 2007. In advance of G20 summit, some Toronto activists have been subjected to harassment and intimidation by police. Similar tactics were also employed in Vancouver before the Olympics.

People in Toronto are already getting a taste of what to expect during the G20 summit. A recent training exercise simulated a hostage taking in the concourse level of Commerce Court, in the downtown core of the city. The operation was comprised of Toronto Police Emergency Task Force, along with private security personnel. The joint exercise was designed to train police and security guards on how to communicate through a shared radio system. During the G20 summit, private security will play an important role in crowd control and emergency response. This is part of the continued merging of the public and private security sectors. Another training exercise involved two military helicopters flying around the Metro Toronto Convention Centre and then landing in front of the CN Tower. This was to test the capability of the landing area and practice transporting delegates to the venues site. These various security drills are intended to check coordinated responses and ultimately to confirm readiness for the summit. They are also used to further acclimate increased police and military presence.

More than anything, it is protests and the threat of terrorism which are used to justify these huge security operations. The deployment of the military alongside police is increasing with their roles seemingly interchangeable. Police tactics and training have become more militarized. New weapons and technology first developed for the military are often being incorporated into police departments. At last year’s G20 summit in Pittsburgh, the LRAD which is capable of emitting painfully loud blasts of sound was turned against protesters. This illustrates a more aggressive approach in trying to control public dissent. Events such as the G20 have become a testing ground for new police state measures and a trial run for a military style occupation. In June, downtown Toronto will essentially be on lockdown with rights and liberties severely restricted.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Police State Canada 2010 and the Olympic Crackdown
The War on Terrorism and the Countdown to the 2010 Olympics
A North American Security Perimeter On The Horizon
Police State Canada 2010 and the Dark Side of the Olympics

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Advancing the Transatlantic Agenda

2010-03-29T19:43:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

Although there is a need for Canada to expand its trade horizons, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) currently being negotiated with the European Union (EU) appears to be based on the flawed NAFTA model. Many view it as an opportunity to decrease its trade reliance on the U.S., but it could serve to accelerate the corporate takeover of the country. The deal would exceed NAFTA in its scope and with the third round of negotiations scheduled for April 19-23 in Ottawa, there are lingering concerns regarding its lack of transparency. A Canada-EU CETA could be used to expand NAFTA, strengthen U.S.-EU economic relations and further advance the transatlantic agenda.

Some believe that the recent Canada-U.S. Agreement on Government Procurement is an important step in providing protection for future bilateral trade relations, but in the process it opens up provincial and municipal contracts to foreign corporations. Maude Barlow and Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians criticized the Conservative government for giving up too much and receiving too little. In an collaborative article they emphasized that, “The provinces have been loath to sign the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement and did not agree to include subnational procurement in NAFTA because they could lose too much say in how public money is spent without getting any new access to the U.S. market..” They went on to say, “We believe the Buy American controversy provided Harper and the provinces, who are actively engaged in ambitious free-trade talks with Europe, with an opportunity to restructure the Canadian economy to reduce the role of our communities in setting spending priorities.” As part of the proposed CETA with Canada, one of the EU’s top objectives includes gaining access to procurement and services in areas of health, energy, water, as well as other sectors. The Canada-U.S. Buy American deal is an extension of NAFTA and has set a precedent which could further reinforce EU demands.

In mid-December 2009, Internet law columnist Michael Geist reported that the EU had proposed negotiating an intellectual property chapter which could reshape Canadian copyright law. He stated that, “While the leaked document may only represent the starting European position, there is little doubt there will be enormous pressure on Canadian negotiators to cave on the IP provision in return for ‘gains’ in other areas.” This also ties into Canada's participation in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations which also include the EU, U.S. and other nations. With respect to the Canada-EU CETA, Geist also acknowledged that, “When combined with ACTA, the two agreements would render Canadian copyright law virtually unrecognizable as Canada would be required to undertake a significant rewrite of its law. The notion of a ‘made-in-Canada’ approach - already under threat from ACTA - would be lost entirely, replaced by a made-in-Washington-and-Brussels law.” Both the U.S. and the EU have singled out Canada for criticism on intellectual property and are pressing for copyright along with other reforms. Conceding to such demands could severely compromise Canadian interests.

Opposition to the scope and process of Canada-EU trade negotiations is increasing. The talks have been marred in secrecy, with little disclosure on the part of the Canadian government and hardly a mention from the mainstream media. Sighting serious concerns, groups such as the Council of Canadians are calling for full transparency. They are also demanding a comprehensive impact assessment, protection for public services and procurement, along with the exclusion of any investment chapter. There are fears that a Canada-EU CETA could include provisions such as NAFTA’s Chapter 11, which gives corporations the power to challenge governmental laws and regulations that restrict their profits. NDP International Trade critic Peter Julian recently berated Canadian negotiators for using the obsolete and harmful NAFTA template. He proclaimed, “we need to push the Canada-EU negotiations towards a much more progressive fair trade model.” Julian admitted that, “It is regrettable that it seems to have been pushed aside for a NAFTA-style agreement that would decrease most Canadian incomes, encourage lower standards and lead to the loss of democratic sovereignty.” A Canada-EU CETA would further promote transatlantic ties and could later include the U.S., as well as Mexico.

In 2007, the U.S.-EU reached a deal on a new Transatlantic Economic Partnership in an effort to work towards eliminating trade barriers, increasing investment and streamlining harmonization on regulations. The agreement established the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) as a permanent body. Trade policy analyst, Daniella Markheim compared the TEC to the now defunct Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America. “Both the SPP and the TEC address property rights protection and enforcement, effective inspections and data sharing on food safety, border measures affecting trade, and other economic and security concerns.” She also added, “Both of these are forums that enable the U.S. and its significant trade partners to find new avenues to improve the flow of commerce and promote greater coherence and consistency in trade rules and regulations.” A Canada-EU free trade agreement would deepen transatlantic economic integration and advance plans for a common market in the region.

Negotiations are proceeding quickly which could lead to a Canada-EU CETA being signed by 2011. The deal would be subject to compatibility with the terms of NAFTA and could help revive and expand the trilateral accord. In addition to further liberalizing trade in goods, services, investment and procurement, it could also include a labour mobility provision. Interlocking superstates are the foundation for global governance and much like the formation of the EU, a North American Union is being created incrementally. Take NAFTA, along with the SPP agenda which is still moving forward through other initiatives, combine it with the TEC, as well as a Canada-EU CETA and you have the basis for a Transatlantic Union.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Building Blocks Towards an Asia-Pacific Union
Passing on the Mantle of Deep North American Integration
Expanding Canadian Trade Horizons
Spreading NAFTA's Love Across the Atlantic

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Pacific North American Regional Integration and Control

2010-03-09T15:37:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

U.S.-Canadian state and provincial integration is being achieved in areas of transportation, the economy, energy and the environment. With some national, trilateral and global initiatives being discredited, stalled or ineffective, it appears as if the strategy has further shifted to a regional and local level in an effort to lay the groundwork for new agreements.

In 2008, the Pacific Coast Collaborative was established between Alaska, British Columbia, California, Oregon and Washington as, “a formal basis for cooperative action, a forum for leadership and information sharing, and a common voice on issues facing Pacific North America.” Some of its key priorities include action on clean energy, regional transportation, emergency management, sustainable regional economy, ocean conservation and climate change, as well as other issues. The inaugural Leaders’ Forum of the Pacific Coast Collaborative was held in Vancouver, British Colombia on February 12, 2010. It was hosted by Premier Gordon Campbell and chaired by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The meeting was also attended by Washington Governor Christine Gregoire and Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown. Although Alaska is also a member of the group, they were not able to send a representative to the meeting. It was announced that Oregon will be hosting the next forum to be held later this year.

The Pacific Coast Leaders signed two action plans. The first being- Innovation, the Environment and the Economy which, “sets out a series of co-operative initiatives to promote renewable and low-carbon energy and energy conservation, including developing Interstate 5/Highway 99 as a green transportation corridor. It also promotes development of high-speed rail from San Diego to Vancouver and the move to ‘Green Ports’ through co-operation to reduce local air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.” The second action plan on Ocean Conservation and Coastal Climate Change Adaptation, “focuses on co-operation on invasive species, reductions in toxins and other pollutants, promoting sustainable fisheries management and research into impacts from climate change and adaptation options.” The leaders also released a document entitled Vision 2030: Positioning Pacific North America for Sustainable Prosperity which sets out a strategic outlook for regional collaboration.

One of the Pacific Coast Collaborative top priorities includes a high speed rail system. On its website it states, “For the Pacific Coastal region to remain competitive, we need transportation systems that will facilitate the movement of people and goods north to south while reducing the number of vehicles on our highways. Rail, particularly high speed rail, can deliver significant benefits to the region including advancing climate change goals, energy conservation, congestion reduction, and job creation for the citizens of the region.” Cassandra Anderson’s article Agenda 21 Alert: Obama Railroads Us With the Bullet Train details how in many ways a high speed rail system in the U.S. would be impractical and costly, with the majority of the trains running off of diesel fuel. President Obama has promised that such an undertaking would create many jobs, but it has been reported that much of the needed equipment and supplies would have to be outsourced. The article also lays out how future transportation systems could restrict auto and personal mobility in an effort to further control the population.

At the recent meeting, Pacific Coast Leaders urged further local action in combating environmental issues. Governor Schwarzenegger acknowledged that, "We're united, there's no two ways about it. Politically, ecologically, we speak with one voice.” He also added that, "We saw at Copenhagen that national governments and the national community has not yet been able to come to an agreement to reducing green house gas emissions. The UN and the national governments have realized that the sub-national governments are really the ones in the end who can put the pressure on and engage the kind of action that is needed." In her article Agenda 21 Alert: Schwarzenegger’s ‘True Lies’ in Copenhagen Cassandra Anderson stated that, “The globalists’ battle for complete control over all populations is from ‘global to local.’ This is why Arnold was brought to speak at the Copenhagen Summit. He truthfully revealed the power that state and local governments have in accomplishing carbon reduction goals.” Anderson went on to say that, “States can enact their own carbon emission reduction laws and Cap and Trade schemes- it is not necessary for international treaties and federal regulations to be passed.”

The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) was launched in 2007 and includes some U.S. states and Canadian provinces as member partners and observers. Their website states that, “The WCI is a collaboration of independent jurisdictions working together to identify, evaluate, and implement policies to tackle climate change at a regional level.” In September of 2008 the WCI unveiled the centerpiece of their strategy, a regional cap-and-trade program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. “The first phase of the cap-and-trade program begins on January 1, 2012, covering emissions from electricity, including imported electricity, industrial combustion at large sources, and industrial process emissions for which adequate measurement methods exist. The second phase begins in 2015, when the program expands to include transportation fuels and residential, commercial and industrial fuels not otherwise covered.” With an eye on the future, the WCI also admitted that their, “cap-and-trade program is designed in such a way that it can provide a model for, be integrated into, or work in conjunction with any future U.S. or Canadian emissions-reduction programs.”

President Obama has been forced to delay his push for a national cap-and-trade plan as legislation has been stalled in the U.S. Senate. Many critics of the program argue that it could lead to millions of jobs being lost and the push for a green economy might further hamper economic recovery. A North American climate change strategy is moving forward which includes more emphasis being placed at a regional and local level. The threat of man-made global warming has been discredited in the eyes of many, yet the environmental agenda continues. Protecting our planet has turned increasingly more political and profitable. Under the guise of safeguarding the environment, many solutions being offered are in the form of more taxes and more control over our lives.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
U.S.-Canada Regional Economic and Energy Integration
Towards a North American Energy Corridor
Leaders’ Summit on North American Relations Held in June

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Thanks to Akston from Statismwatch.ca for the heads up.

A New Generation of North American Citizens

2010-02-06T16:52:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

The North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) was created in 2002, and is one of many think tanks pushing for closer continental ties. In 2005, NAFI organized the Triumvirate, a North American model parliament which meets once a year. The exercise brings together university students from the U.S., Mexico and Canada with participants assigned the roles of legislators, journalists or lobbyists. Over the years, the mock parliament has debated and drafted resolutions on such key issues as trade corridors, immigration, NAFTA’s Chapter 11, along with the creation of a North American investment fund and a customs union. Infowars reported that last year’s Triumvirate gathering was cancelled due to the swine flu pandemic scare.

The Triumvirate 2010 will be held in Querétaro, Mexico. A description on its website states that, “This 5th edition will gather a hundred university students from Mexico, the United States and Canada to participate, from May 30th to June 4th, 2010, in an international negotiation exercise in which they will simulate a parliamentary meeting.” Some of the main objectives of the Triumvirate event include, “To allow participants to familiarize themselves with the functioning of democratic institutions as well as North American political, economic, environmental and social realities; to develop the participants’ sense of belonging to North America (and) to increase intercultural exchanges and promote the creation of academia networks.” This year’s delegates will address such topics as making smart borders more efficient, managing transboundary water in North America, as well as countering human trafficking and consolidating North American governance. While the model legislature is seen as an opportunity for students to better understand the political process and the challenges facing the continent, in many ways it mirrors actual efforts to further integrate the three countries. This includes the vision of a real functioning North American parliament similar to the European Union (EU) model.

In a 2008 article, journalist Steve Watson described the mock parliament as, “another example of an overarching movement on behalf of globalist business leaders and politicians to merge the three nations of North America into an EU like federation.” He added that, “Integration meetings such as the NAFI Triumvirate are simulations of the exact practices currently being undertaken by the SPP and its offshoot organizations. The NAFI Triumvirate is designed to familiarize ‘future Canadian, American and Mexican leaders’ with the processes involved in such practices.” Watson also pointed out that missing from the whole activity is any simulated opposition to the agenda being presented. The reality is that not all issues need to be addressed in a bilateral, trilateral or global fashion as some are best solved at a local, state and national level. It is important to learn about other countries and instill a sense of cooperation, but the Triumvirate exercise appears to be aimed at indoctrinating students to view themselves as North American citizens as opposed to Americans, Canadians or Mexicans.

Many of the recommendations from the 2005 report, Building a North American Community became part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agenda and the push for deep integration. The policy paper advocated the creation of a network of centers for North American studies. It recommended that, “the three governments open a competition and provide grants to universities in each of the three countries to promote courses, education and research on North America and assist elementary and secondary schools in teaching about North America.” The report also recommended developing, “teacher exchange training programs for elementary and secondary school teachers. This would assist in removing language barriers and give some students a greater sense of a North American identity.” In his article The Future of North America, Robert Pastor, one of the leading proponents of continental integration proclaimed, “To educate a new generation of students to think North American, each country should begin by supporting a dozen centers for North American studies. Each center should educate students, undertake research, and foster exchanges with other North American universities for both students and faculty.”

The Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, D.C., “was established to educate a new generation of students, to promote policy debate among the governments and the public, and to undertake research on ideas for a continental future.” Arizona State University has also created the North American Center for Transborder Studies whose mission, “is to advance greater understanding of border and trilateral issues in North America by supporting scholars who contribute to the development of innovative theory and actionable policy analysis regarding these issues.” The North American Integration and Development Center based at the University of California, Los Angeles, “seeks to build linkages among a wide variety of institutions, organizations, and community groups in order to promote North American integration.” These various centers, along with other initiatives are part of the ongoing efforts to further condition and train a new generation into accepting a North American consciousness.

The ideology of globalization is deeply embedded in the corporate structure, mass media, government, as well as in the whole educational system. Together they are working to shape the minds of the next generation. Students at all levels are being indoctrinated to conform to universal values and standards. Under a new global order, there is no room for nationalism or individuality. Increasingly, it is special interest groups, multinational corporations, think tanks, and other nongovernmental organizations who are pulling the strings of power. National sovereignty remains one of the last obstacles to the full implementation of a North American Union and global government.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
A North American Security Perimeter On The Horizon
Passing on the Mantle of Deep North American Integration
Lawsuit Would Further Expose Secretive SPP Agenda
U.S.-Canada Regional Economic and Energy Integration
Towards a North American Energy Corridor
Leaders' Summit on North American Relations Held in June

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

The War on Terrorism and the Countdown to the 2010 Olympics

2010-01-24T16:14:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

The Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics will be the largest security operation in Canadian history. It will include more than 15,000 Canadian Forces, private security personnel, along with the RCMP and other police agencies. The U.S. will also provide security and support for the Games. With the Olympics fast approaching, the fear of terrorism is back in the public’s psyche. Although there has been no specific threats to the Games, more than anything, it is the danger of terrorism which is used to justify the huge security operation. This is further advancing the militarization of North America and U.S.-Canada military and security integration. The Olympics will take bi-national security cooperation to a whole new level.

Unmanned drones are patrolling the U.S.-Canada border as part of the war on terrorism and to curb smuggling, along with drug trafficking. It is unclear if they will be used for surveillance during the Games, but U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman, Juan Munoz-Torres has stated that, “If the RCMP or Canadian government believes they can make use of the aircraft for support during the Olympics, we will be more than willing to provide it.” In Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of the world, armed American drones continue to carry out strikes against suspected terrorists and insurgents. It is interesting that many of the weapons used in the war on terrorism overseas are later deployed for domestic purposes. The use of unmanned drones on the northern border will only add to the further militarization of North America.

In May of 2009, former Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan and U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano signed the Shiprider Agreement which grew out of a pilot project inspired by the Security and Prosperity Partnership. It was later tabled in the House of Commons as Bill C-60, the Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act. The cross-border maritime security law would deputize U.S. officers operating in shared waterways during integrated operations, including pursuit on adjacent land. Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians commented on the motivation surrounding Bill C-60, as well as several other pieces of legislation. “The effort seems purely aimed at appeasing U.S. concerns about Canadian security practices and is another step towards a perimeter approach to ‘securing’ North America as a whole.” As for the prorogation of Canada’s Parliament, he noted that, “although with C-60 off the order paper there is no legislative backing for the arrangement. U.S. police forces will be patrolling Canadian waterways on RCMP ships during the 2010 Winter Olympics.”

General Gene Renuart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command(NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) has given some indication as to the function both will play during the Olympics. He stated that, “We, in our NORAD role, will maintain the air sovereignty both for the U.S. and Canada, the air security over the Olympic games.” He went on to say, “In our NORTHCOM role, we’ll probably provide some additional security and support…and consequence management response capability.” NORAD’s deputy commander Lt. Gen. Marcel Duval recently expanded on the bi-national organization’s responsibilities during the Olympics. “NORAD will do its normal airspace warning and aerospace control mission over the games using Canadian NORAD-region assets, (such as) Canadian CF-18s.” He also added that, “We’ll be supported by other NORAD assets like air-to-air refueling and airborne early-warning aircraft.” In regards to Canada Command, NORTHCOM and NORAD’s preparations for the Olympics, Duval acknowledged, “In many ways, the 2010 Winter Games have allowed the three commands to come closer, in terms of understanding, cooperating and collaborating.”

Canadian officials continue to work closely with their American counterparts in monitoring potential security threats to the Games and its shared border. The Olympic Security Coordination Centre in Bellingham, Washington, “will coordinate the security efforts for over 40 federal, state and local agencies on the U.S. side of the U.S. – Canadian border. This facility will provide a strategic response platform to facilitate critical response efforts during the Olympic Games and beyond.” In the advent of an emergency situation, the bilateral Civil Assistance Plan signed by the U.S.-Canadian military in February of 2008 could be activated. The agreement allows the military of one nation to support the other during a civil emergency such as a flood, forest fire, hurricane, earthquake or a terrorist attack.

In late December 2009, pipeline and energy storage company Kinder Morgan notified the RCMP that while en route from Alberta to a North Vancouver facility, two one-tonne bags of ammonium nitrate went missing. This is the same chemical compound which has been used in several past terrorist bombings. Kinder Morgan later determined the missing bags were as a result of a clerical error. The RCMP have not been able to confirm the company's findings and continue with their investigation. This could be setting up a cover story for a possible false flag terrorist attack during the Olympics.

A U.S. State Department fact sheet is advising Americans attending the Vancouver 2010 Olympics to use caution and be alert of their surroundings at all times. While it notes that there has been no specific or credible threats associated with the Olympics, it does warn of a possible Al-Qaeda attack. It states that, “As security increases in and around Olympic venues, terrorists could shift their focus to more unprotected Olympic venues, open public spaces, hotels, railway and other transportation systems, churches, restaurants, and other sites not associated with the Olympics.” It goes on to say that, “Al-Qaeda's demonstrated capability to carry out sophisticated attacks against sizable structures - such as ships, large office buildings, embassies and hotels - makes it one of the greatest potential threats to the Olympics.” In the aftermath of the failed Christmas day bombing attempt, once again terrorism is being used to create a climate of fear and insecurity.

Whether or not you buy into the whole war on terrorism, it is being used to launch wars of aggression and further expand the American empire. It is also very much intertwined with the whole process of deep North American integration and plans for a continental security perimeter. The threat level for the upcoming Olympics remains low, but some are warning that the proroguing of Canada’s Parliament, along with the huge security apparatus being assembled for the Games might be setting the stage for a possible false flag terror event. This could be used to pass more anti-terrorist and other draconian pieces of legislation. It could also lead to a martial law scenario with American troops occupying parts of Canada.

Related Articles by Dana Gabriel
A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon
Police State Canada 2010 and the Olympic Crackdown
Police State Canada 2010 and the Dark Side of the Olympics
U.S.-Canada Border Security and Military Integration
The SPP and Merging Military Command Structures
Afghanistan: Canada Must Pursue a More Independent Foreign Policy

A North American Security Perimeter on the Horizon

2010-01-10T15:49:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

NAFTA has extended from economic integration into a political and regional security pact which has been achieved through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, Plan Mexico, as well as other initiatives. Various pieces of legislation and reports, along with influential individuals have called for closer trilateral cooperation regarding common rules for immigration and security enforcement around the perimeter of the continent. A major part of the U.S. security agenda already includes the defense of North America, but a full blown security zone would bring Canada and Mexico further under its control. A Fortress North America poses a serious threat to our sovereignty and would mean the loss of more civil liberties.

Plans for a North America security perimeter might have seemed like a pipe dream just a short time ago, but it could become a reality sooner than one thinks. Some believe that a perimeter approach to security would be a more effective way of providing safety while ensuring the free flow of trade and investment. For those pushing for deep continental integration, this move is seen as the next logical step. A recent article from the Toronto Star, Canada warms to idea of a tougher 'perimeter' suggests that Canadians might now be ready to debate the concept of perimeter security. David Biette who specializes in U.S.-Canada relations and is a member of the Woodrow Wilson Center stated that a, "Perimeter is no longer a dirty word. It's beginning to come up again, at least in academic circles." He went on to say, "Canada held back when it first came up and I can certainly understand why. There was still such bad feeling left over on free trade and what that might mean for Canadian sovereignty that perimeter security was just not palatable to Canadians." Biette also added, "You ask yourself, 'What would a mutually improved relationship look like?' and really, there is nothing else. Perimeter is the one big thing – the last truly huge step on the horizon." A North American security perimeter would be one of the final steps needed in the creation of a North American Union.

Some of the recommendations from the 2005 report, Building a North American Community co-sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, included a unified border, a North American border pass, a single economic space, as well as a common security perimeter by 2010. Many of the task force recommendations in areas of trade, transportation, energy, immigration and security became part of the SPP agenda. Despite the demise of the SPP, many of its key objectives continue to move forward under the North American Leaders Summit, as well as through other initiatives. In February of 2009, it was reported that former Canadian international trade and foreign affairs minister, David Emerson, “called on the government to aggressively seek stronger Canada-U.S. ties, up to and including a customs union. He said at minimum, Canada should advocate a North American security perimeter arrangement, a labour mobility agreement that modernizes NAFTA provisions, and greater integration on regulatory matters.” U.S. officials remain concerned on how risk assessments of people entering Canada are conducted as well as the differences in its immigration and visa policies. A common perimeter approach to border management and security would require harmonization of Canadian-U.S. immigration and customs standards.

It was clear before Obama became president that he wished to relax immigration restrictions with Mexico and supported some sort of amnesty program. In mid-December of last year, H.R. 4321 the Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009 was introduced in the House of Representatives. The Obama administration has been criticized for its lack of immigration enforcement. Many have warned that the new legislation would not only grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, but also increase legal immigration and create more loopholes in the system. In Sec. 143. Reports on Improving the Exchange of Information on North American Security, there is wording which could further promote deep continental integration. This includes yearly status reports, “in developing and implementing an immigration security strategy for North America that works toward the development of a common security perimeter.” Previous failed security and immigration bills also contained similar language referring to a shared security perimeter around the continent.

The Merida Initiative, also known as Plan Mexico is an extension of NAFTA and has its roots in the SPP. It is based on America’s failed war on drugs, which has been costly and ineffective. The Merida Initiative relies primarily on military and law enforcement solutions and is advancing police state measures. In a recent interview, Laura Carlsen director of the Americas Policy Program in Mexico City described how Plan Mexico, “was designed in Washington as a way to ‘push out the borders’ of the US security perimeter, that is, that Mexico would take on US security priorities including policing its southern border and allowing US companies and agents into Mexico's intelligence and security operations.” She also commented that, “The Obama administration has supported the plan and even requested, and received from Congress, additional funds beyond what the Bush administration requested.” The Plan Mexico strategy is working towards the development of a common security perimeter and is further encouraging the militarization of Mexico. Continued drug violence in the country could be used as a pretext to set up a North American security perimeter

The recent foiled terrorist attack on Christmas day is accelerating the implementation of a high-tech control grid which could restrict, track and trace our movements. With the war on terrorism back in the forefront, the continued merging of North America might include Canada and Mexico playing a bigger role in regards to perimeter security. Canadian officials have announced that within the next several months, body scanners will be installed in 11 airports across the country. Some proponents of a continental security zone believe that it is the best way to secure North America, but at the same time falsely claim that this could be done with respect to each nation’s sovereignty. We are well on the way towards a North American security perimeter where trade and investment will be able to roam freely, while we are all forced to endure new security practices dominated by U.S. interests.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Police State Canada 2010 and the Dark Side of the Olympics
U.S.-Canada Border Security and Military Integration
The SPP and Merging Military Command Structures
Plan Mexico Tied to SPP
Afghanistan: Canada Must Pursue a More Independent Foreign Policy

FLASHBACK: The SPP and Merging Military Command Structures

2009-12-31T14:30:00.000-08:00

(Originally published on June 6, 2008)

By Dana Gabriel

Portions of the Civil Assistance Plan (CAP) signed by the U.S.-Canadian military in mid-February were just recently posted on the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and Canada Command websites. The plan would allow for military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency, including one that does not involve a cross-border crisis. Some fear that this agreement could lead to foreign troops being used for gun confiscation and marital law. CAP, along with the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), are further advancing the merging of U.S.-Canadian military command structures and represent steps towards a North American Union.

In 2002, then U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, announced the creation of NORTHCOM, and boasted that it would have jurisdiction over all of North America. In an article by Michel Chossudovsky, he states the, “redesign of Canada’s defense system is being discussed behind closed doors, not in Canada, but at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado, at the headquarters of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).” He went on to say, “Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated.” In addition, this is taking place through the SPP and poses a serious threat to Canadian sovereignty and any resemblance of an independent foreign policy.

Canada Command and NORTHCOM have established close bilateral ties, meeting regularly and planning as well as participating in joint military exercises. American, Canadian, and even Mexican troops have held military training exercises in advent of a possible natural disaster or terrorist attack during the 2010 winter Olympics in Vancouver. It is unclear whether American troops will be providing any type of security at the Olympics. On top of merging command structures, binational integration is also taking place in areas of intelligence and law enforcement.

In advance of the SPP Leader Summit in Montebello, Quebec back in 2007, it was reported that the RCMP, along with the U.S. Army, blocked the Council of Canadians from renting a municipal community center to hold a forum in. The reason cited was that it was located inside the reported 25 km security perimeter. There is little doubt that the SPP is also further advancing the police state.

The majority of Canadians reject the SPP, and deeper integration with the United States. It is not surprising that the Harper Conservative government and the Canadian military failed to announce the signing of CAP. This agreement was not signed by the governments of both countries, but by military commanding officers with no public debate or Parliamentary and Congressional oversight. There was no Canadian Forces press release, and the government refused to answer questions on the agreement in the House of Commons. It is hard to imagine that an agreement of such magnitude, which would allow U.S.-Canadian troops on each other’s soil and threaten the sovereignty of each nation was not debated or voted on. Just like the SPP, CAP is shrouded in secrecy, with many missing annexes that remain classified. This agreement goes hand in hand with parts of the North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza, which was announced at the SPP Summit in Montebello.

Canadian military command structures are further merging with the U.S., and it is becoming more aggressive in its operations. The Canadian government’s tone and language directed towards other nations is becoming more hostile. There has been a shift from its more traditional role as a peacekeeping nation, which has garnered praise and respect from around the world. Canada might play a more active role in the war on terror, including possible participation in future U.S. military operations. The SPP is further advancing Canadian security and military assimilation into the U.S. and a North American Union.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Police State Canada 2010 and the Dark Side of the Olympics
U.S.-Canada Border Security and Military Integration
Afghanistan: Canada Must Pursue a More Independent Foreign Policy

Police State Canada 2010 and the Olympic Crackdown

2009-12-13T16:00:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

(image by CasaZaza)

In advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics, critics of the Games have been subjected to surveillance, harassment, along with other intimidation tactics. Voicing opposition to the Olympics appears to be all that is needed for one to be labeled as a security threat. There are concerns over the negative impacts associated with holding the Games, as well as concerted efforts to stifle anti-Olympic expression. As the Coca-Cola/RBC corporate torch relay nears its final destination, the opening ceremonies in Vancouver on February 12, 2010, more protests are expected. The Olympics are providing the perfect cover for many police state measures with ramifications that could leave a lasting legacy.

In a recent report, the Civil Liberties Advisory Committee (CLAC), an Olympic watchdog group issued a series of recommendations aimed at ensuring that rights and freedoms are respected during the Winter Games. The group strongly believes that protesters have a right to gather anywhere on public property, provided that they do not break the law. In regards to safe protest zones, CLAC favors that they be defined by painted lines on sidewalks or streets and not by fences or security barriers. This gives the perception that protesters are a threat. The watchdog group proposed that the Vancouver Police Department (VDP) be given the lead role in dealing with Olympic protests. This is due to concerns over mistrust of the RCMP in the province of BC as well as out of town police officers being, “unfamiliar with the groups and practices associated with peaceful protests here." CLAC also recommended that, “the Integrated Security Unit issue a public assurance that plain-clothes police officers or other plain-clothes agents will not actively participate in protests during the Olympics.” There are fears that police could infiltrate anti-Olympic groups, in order to stage events which would justify a crackdown during the 2010 Winter Games.

At the Vancouver International Security Conference held from November 30 - December 1, 2009, Victoria police Chief Jamie Graham described how an undercover police officer posing as a bus driver, infiltrated a group of anti-Olympic activists. The group was on its way to Victoria to protest the start of the Olympic torch relay in late October of this year. In his article Police spying demands explanation, Paul Willcocks lays out the scenario, “based on what Graham told the conference, police secretly found out what bus company a group from the Lower Mainland was going to use. Then they approached the company and convinced the manager to pull the regular driver and let an undercover officer drive.” He goes on to say, “And then the officer drove the bus, keeping watch on the passengers in the rearview mirror, presumably eavesdropping and making notes on peoples' names and what they said.” Graham has so far refused to further elaborate on his comments, and it is unclear if the operation was approved by the police board or another agency. Willcocks also emphasized that, “These aren't terrorists. They hadn't done anything wrong. (And there were no arrests at the protests that day.) No court had approved surveillance. They were Canadian citizens on a bus going to a legitimate public protest.” Apparently, not everyone saw the protesters as people exercising their rights as Liberal MLA Harry Bloy labeled them as terrorists with a limited intellect. This sort of thinking is part of a dangerous pattern of equating free speech and protests with terrorism.

Another recent disturbing incident occurred when Marla Renn, a member of the Olympic Resistance Network was en route to Portland, Oregon to give a speech on the negative impacts of the 2010 Games. She was interrogated by U.S. border guards regarding her anti-Olympic activities and was denied entry. Later, she faced more questions from Canadian officials. This further illustrates the level of coordination of shared intelligence by American and Canadian agencies and how Olympic critics are being targeted as potential security threats on both sides of the border. Renn stated that, “Continued harassment of peaceful organizers and speakers by the police and border guards show that their real objective is to silence dissent and not to protect the public.” This dovetails with award-winning journalist Amy Goodman being detained and interrogated at the Canadian border. This was over concerns that while on her trip to promote her new book, she might criticize the 2010 Winter Games. Border guards repeatedly asked if she planned to discuss the Olympics and demanded that she provide notes on topics she would cover. It is becoming increasingly clear that this type of behavior is not the work of border agents or police officers acting alone, but part of directives coming form the top with the purpose to intimidate and curb any perceived anti-Olympic sentiments.

Just in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics, the VDP has purchased a Long Range Acoustic Device. Better known as LRAD, it can be used as a loudspeaker to communicate with large crowds, but it is also capable of emitting painfully loud blasts of sound. The LRAD sonic weapon was turned against protesters at the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh several months back. VDP officials insist that it will only be used as a public address system. Constable Lindsey Houghton said that the LRAD’s high-decibel tone function will be disabled until clear guidelines are established and he did not expect any policy to be in place before the start of the Olympics. As far as using the LRAD as a weapon, Houghton noted that, “If we’re going to be using it for the function of moving away people in a riot-type situation, the riot proclamation has to be read.” The precedent has already been set with the LRAD being used against protesters in North America and it is not hard to imagine a scenario whereby it could be employed in the same capacity in Vancouver during the Olympics.

Some anti-poverty groups have raised concerns over the Assistance to Shelter Act. They believe that during the Olympics, it could be used to roundup homeless people off the streets, under the guise of protecting them from extreme weather. Vancouver human-rights activist and writer Tom Sandborn said, “This legislation turns our homeless shelters into jails, with shelter employees as the guards.” He also added that, “Forcing someone to move out of a tent into a pew at First United or some other half measure shelter only makes sense in the context of clearing the streets for the Olympics.” The city of Vancouver has been subjected to frequent criticism for its lack of adequate shelters and affordable housing. Many believe that the high costs associated with holding the Olympics is money that would have been better spent on housing, social programs and other critical infrastructure. Much of the security surrounding the Olympics in Vancouver appears to be aimed directly at the homeless as well as protesters.

In a bit of good news, due to intense public pressure, a controversial sign bylaw has been rewritten. Olympic critics charged that it would have infringed on the right to free expression by giving police the power to enter homes without consent or a court order and seize protest signs. This did not stop the city of Vancouver from ordering the removal of an anti-Olympic mural under its graffiti bylaw. The picture was hanging outside a Downtown Eastside gallery and characterized a set of black Olympic rings, four as sad faces and one with a smile. The rights and freedoms of those who wish to celebrate the Olympics should be no different than those who choose to dissent. The giant security apparatus being assembled for the Games has translated into many police state measures which are being used to suppress free speech. There is no doubt that the 2010 Vancouver Winter Games must provide a safe and secure environment for athletes, spectators, officials, local residents and all others involved. This should not be at the expense of those who seek to engage in anti-Olympic protests or other forms of peaceful activism and they should be free to do so without intimidation and fear.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact:beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Building Blocks Towards an Asia-Pacific Union

2009-11-29T18:12:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

Although some may have viewed President Barack Obama’s recent Asian trip as uneventful and perhaps unsuccessful, he appears to have recommitted to the principles of globalization as the answer to the world’s economic woes. Obama declared his intentions for the U.S. to be fully engaged in Asia economically, politically, and in areas of security. He announced that America would join negotiations for a Trans-Pacific deal. This could be used as an opportunity for the U.S. to reassert its leadership in regards to trade initiatives and might also serve as a stepping stone for a larger free trade agreement.
　
The recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit was held in Singapore and marked its 20th anniversary. It brought together world leaders, foreign, finance and trade ministers, along with other delegates from its 21 member nations. APEC was founded to promote greater trade and integration in the region, but its scope has expanded to include environmental, climate change, energy, as well as other issues. In a Statement by APEC Leaders, they agreed to a new growth paradigm for the Asia-Pacific region, endorsed the goals of the G20 Framework and rejected protectionism. The Leaders, “launched a pathfinder initiative led by Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States to practice self-certification of origin so that businesses can better take advantage of free trade agreements in the region.” This is in an effort to cut costs for exporters and further boost trade. APEC Leaders also agreed to, “continue to explore building blocks towards a possible Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific in the future.”
　
While on his eight-day Asian tour, which included stops in Japan, Singapore, China, as well as South Korea, President Obama recommitted to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It was President George W. Bush who first pledged U.S. participation in the TPP. The trade deal was put on hold pending a review of U.S. trade policy. A government fact sheet describes the TPP as a, “potential platform for economic integration across the Asia Pacific region. The United States will engage with an initial group of seven like-minded countries, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei, Australia, Peru, and Vietnam, to craft a platform for a high-standard, comprehensive agreement - one that reflects U.S. priorities and values - with these and additional Asia-Pacific partners.” Australia will host TPP negotiation sessions in March of next year and a trade treaty could be in place by 2011. Many nations in the region are already bound by various regional and bilateral trade agreements. Expanding the TPP would further distinguish it as the only regional free trade agreement that spans both sides of the Pacific, linking Asia with the Americas. It could also gradually evolve into an Asia-Pacific free trade zone and include APEC members, as well as other nations. Such an undertaking is seen as years away, but U.S. participation in the TPP could speed up such plans.
　
The United States Trade Representative website reported that after the APEC Summit, “USTR staff and their TPP country counterparts met to discuss work that would need to be done to develop proposals to fill gaps in previous trade agreements and to shape a 21st century trade agreement. These discussions will inform consultations with Congress and with stakeholders about how best to move forward on TPP.” A recent article by Jim Capo raised some important questions concerning TPP negotiations. He stated that, “For the US to undertake negotiations for a trade agreement Congress has first to grant approval to start specific negotiations, and has also to grant Trade Promotion Authority to enable the Executive to conclude the negotiations and put an agreement to Congress with a yes or no vote, without amendments.” He goes on to say that, “There has been no formal Congress approval of TPPA negotiation, President Bush’s Trade Promotion Authority has also expired in March 2007. This means the current US administration has no approval to start negotiation and no authority to conclude them.”
　
Ahead of the APEC Summit, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd proposed an Asia-Pacific Community by 2020. The regional group would be based on the European Union-style model. It would go beyond APEC and encompass not only economic, but political and security issues. In October of this year, Republican Senator Richard Lugar announced his intentions to introduce legislation aimed at negotiating a free trade agreement with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The first ASEAN-U.S. Leaders meeting was held in Singapore on November 15. In a Joint Statement the U.S., “welcomed ASEAN's plans to achieve an ASEAN Community by 2015 based on the ASEAN Charter, and reaffirmed its commitment to support those plans.” ASEAN and the U.S. also agreed to hold a second Leaders meeting in 2010.
　
On his Asian trip, Obama emphasized the need to strengthen old alliances as well as build new partnerships in the region. He said, "the growth of multilateral organizations can advance the security and prosperity of the region." He also added, "As an Asia-Pacific nation the United States expects to be involved in the discussions that shape the future of this region and to participate fully in appropriate organizations as they are established and evolve." In his article above referenced, Jim Capo noted that, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is the sister agreement to the Trans-Atlantic Agenda. Together with NAFTA and the North American Leaders Summit (new name for the discredited SPP), these deals are building blocks for an integrated system of global governance managed by Western financial interests and their collaborators around the world.”
　
Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Passing on the Mantle of Deep North American Integration

2009-11-04T04:29:00.000-08:00

By Dana Gabriel

With the demise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America and the restructuring of many of its key priorities under the banner of the North American Leaders Summit, other trilateral initiatives are also passing on the mantle of deep continental integration.

The Fifth Annual North American Forum was held in Ottawa on October 4-6, 2009. In a news release the group describes itself as, “a community of Canadian, Mexican and American thought leaders whose purpose is to advance a shared vision of North America, and to contribute to improved relations among the three countries.” It goes on to say that, “They come together annually to explore linkages among the mutually reinforcing goals of security, prosperity and enhanced quality of life.” Meetings are co-chaired by former U.S. Secretary of State, George Schultz, former Premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed, as well as former Mexican Finance Minister Pedro Aspe. The North American Forum has no business office and no business address. It consists of the three co-chairs, along with their extensive network of contacts in government, business and the military, meeting privately to champion North American integration. The news release also stated that, “This year’s meeting of the North American Forum focused on the need for Canada, Mexico and the United States to work together in responding to the global economic crisis and promoting a quick return to strong and sustainable growth. In addition, the Forum included special sessions on two critical issues: one on energy and the environment, and the other on transnational crime, arms smuggling and drug trafficking.” The North American Forum has been described as a parallel structure to the SPP.

The Standing Commission on North American Prosperity is an initiative of the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and directly relates to the ongoing efforts to further merge North America. The group characterizes itself as “an united effort of distinguished individuals from Mexico, Canada and the USA to provide sound economic and social policy guidance to the political leaders of the three countries for the future prosperity of all peoples of North America.” It notes that, “In the aftermath of NAFTA and the SPP initiatives, a vacuum presently exists in developing a vision for North American prosperity. The lack of such a vision jeopardizes previous achievements in building strong economic ties across North America made during the past 15 years.” It also states that, “The Commission will meet 3 times a year and will provide ‘A North American Prosperity’ White paper to the leaders of the three countries upon conclusion of each session.” The group’s inaugural Summit was held at Georgia’s Kennesaw State University on May 12-13, 2009.

The Future of North America Summit presented by the Standing Commission on North American Prosperity was scheduled to take place on November 2-3 of this year in Toronto, Canada. It was reported that the Summit was cancelled, but there is no indication if it will take place at a later date. The meetings would have included the participation of past political heavyweights such as former Mexican President Vicente Fox, former U.S. President George H.W. Bush, former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, as well as former Chilean President Ricardo Lagos Escobar. The agenda would have dealt with economic, environmental and climate change, energy, trade, transportation, along with other issues and how they relate to North America. In a recent article Manuel Pérez-Rocha, director of the NAFTA Plus and the SPP Advocacy Project, raised some valid questions concerning the meetings. He stated, “Are we going back to the future? Why are these former leaders ‘representing’ countries they don’t run any more? Is their purpose to dictate to our actual presidents what to do to build North America? Why was ex president Lagos from Chile invited at all?” What is clear is that with the SPP no longer the vehicle being used to create a North American Union, other groups and initiatives are further advancing deep continental integration.

The 2009 meeting of the NAFTA Free Trade Commission was held in Dallas, Texas on October 19 of this year and brought together top trade officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The meeting was used as an opportunity to celebrate NAFTA’s achievements and to plot a course for the future. Manuel Pérez-Rocha stated, “What the three governments are really doing is incorporating the already-buried, George W. Bush-led Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agenda into NAFTA. While current presidents are stripping the SPP label, which has garnered much negative publicity, they’re keeping its principles to armor NAFTA as an instrument for further deregulation.” He also said that, “the merging of the SPP prosperity agenda into NAFTA is evident, especially after the recent Dallas meeting. In their declaration, the trade officials stated that since 2007, the three countries have worked together to protect and enforce intellectual property rights. This was one of the SPP’s plans, together with a ‘framework for regulatory cooperation,’ a ‘North American plan for avian and pandemic influenza,’ and an ‘agreement for cooperation on energy science and technology,’ which are also well under way.” Mexico is scheduled to host the next NAFTA Commission meeting in 2010. Despite the demise of the SPP, many of its key objectives have already been implemented or continue to move forward through other initiatives.

Speaking at the annual policy forum of the Canadian American Business Council held in Montreal on October 21, U.S. ambassador to Canada David Jacobson said that there are no immediate plans to reopen NAFTA. He also echoed Washington’s sentiments that the trade agreement is working well for all sides. This could not be further from the truth as NAFTA is badly flawed. Minus a few cosmetic changes that the Obama administration might make regarding side deals related to labor and the environment, the reality is that NAFTA will remain intact. The NAFTA structure is also being used to advance SPP objectives. All the talk of renegotiating the agreement appears to have revived the 15 year old trade accord and renewed the push for North American integration. This could lead to NAFTA’s expansion into a North American Union and might serve to further spread its failed model to other parts of the Western Hemisphere.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Lawsuit Would Further Expose Secretive SPP Agenda

2009-10-17T17:49:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

It is as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests and other previous legal proceedings that thousands of documents have already been forced into the public eye, shedding some light into the secretive nature of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America agenda. The SPP appears to be dead in name only as many of its key priorities continue under the North American Leaders Summit. If a lawsuit brought forth by a U.S. public interest firm is successful, it would further expose the SPP and show how some groups relate inside the whole trilateral process.

In a press release from October 15, 2009, Judicial Watch announced, “that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has overturned the district court and ruled that Judicial Watch has standing to bring a lawsuit against the Department of Commerce related to the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), which was set up under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America. Judicial Watch argues the NACC is subject to the open meetings law known as Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and must make its meetings open to the public and must release records relating to those meetings.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated, “Our objective with this lawsuit is simple: to bring as much transparency as possible to the proceedings of this government-private program. In the spirit of President Obama's promise to provide 'unprecedented' levels of transparency to the inner-workings of government, the Commerce Department should stop stonewalling and open these meetings and documents up to the American people as soon as possible." As well as attempting to gain access to documents concerning the NACC meetings and activities, Judicial Watch also wishes to become a member of the group.

The NACC was formed in 2006 to ensure that corporate interests were being addressed inside the SPP framework. It is made up of top Canadian, U.S. and Mexican business executives from some of the largest corporations in North America. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with the Council of the Americas, serve as the NACC secretariat in the United States. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) serves as its secretariat in Canada and the Instituto Mexicano para la Competitividad (Mexican Institute for Competitiveness) serves as its secretariat in Mexico. The NACC was the only formal advisory board inside the SPP and much has been made about its influence in formulating policy. The group first met with Canadian Prime Minister Harper, Mexican President Calderon and U.S. President Bush during the North American Leaders Summit in Montebello, Quebec in August of 2007. They also met with the three national leaders at the Summit in New Orleans in 2008.

Despite not being invited to participate in the North American Leaders Summit which took place in Guadalajara, Mexico on August 9-10, 2009, the NACC still prepared a document to advise the leaders before they met. In a Statement to the Leaders in Advance of the 2009 North American Leaders’ Summit it says, "Trilateral cooperation on borders, regulations, energy, and other important issues is essential to the prosperity and security of North America. We and the business communities we represent trust that our advice to date has assisted Leaders in choosing priorities and driving progress. Going forward, the NACC stands ready to offer our ideas and expertise, and we hope the three governments will continue with the NACC." Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians concluded that, “The NACC may continue to exist. It might even meet every now and then to dream up new priorities for the three North American governments. But we have successfully robbed these CEOs of their privileged spot inside North American summits.” Last month, Jerome Corsi reported that the NACC continues to operate under the North American Leaders Summit structure, along with more than 20 trilateral working groups. They are further concentrating in areas of North American citizen security, economic competitiveness, energy policy and climate change.

In a recent interview, outgoing CEO and President of the CCCE Thomas d’Aquino stated that, “When President Obama came to power, he faced a lot of pressure to shelve the SPP and not follow through with the NACC because his advisors were looking for an institution that would also involve environmentalists, union leaders, et al. But at the North American Leaders' Summit in Guadalajara this summer, President Calderon and Prime Minister Harper both told President Obama that the NACC was very useful. In fact, the Canadian NACC group met with our prime minister and his key ministers for an hour and a half on the eve of his departure for the Guadalajara summit. He said that, regardless of whether the NACC continues formally on a trilateral basis, he welcomes our advice on trilateral issues.” It still remains unclear if NACC will be invited to meet with the national leaders at the 2010 North American Leaders Summit which is expected to take place in Canada.

Top trade officials from all three NAFTA countries are set to meet in Dallas, Texas on October 19 of this year. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk will play host to Canadian Minister of International Trade Stockwell Day and Mexico’s Secretary of the Economy Gerardo Ruiz Mateos. The trilateral meeting is expected to focus on trade, North American business competitiveness, curbing protectionism, and other issues. Despite the demise of the SPP, many of its key components have already been implemented or continue to move forward under the North American Leaders Summit, as well as through other initiatives. It remains to be seen whether the NACC will regain the influence they once had, but regardless, you can be sure that big business will continue to push for deep North American integration. The SPP, along with NAFTA have already laid much of the groundwork for a North American Union.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

UPDATE/FLASHBACK: Bill C-51, Codex and the SPP‏

2009-10-15T10:58:00.000-07:00

UPDATE:

Many will recall the intense opposition voiced against Bill C-51 which proposed sweeping changes to the Food and Drugs Act. There was also much contention surrounding Bill C-52, the Consumer Products Safety Act. Both Bills would have expanded the powers of Health Canada in areas of seizure and detention. After the last federal election in October 2008, the Harper government essentially reintroduced Bill C-52 as Bill C-6. It has now been passed in the House of Commons and is being debated in the Senate. The Conservatives contend that Bill C-6 has nothing to do with natural health products. There are still concerns that it contains elements of Bill C-51 and could threaten health choices. Part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) agenda, includes harmonizing regulations. Codex Alimentarius is about implementing a global food code and has the potential to further endanger health freedoms. It has been reported that Codex worldwide implementation is slated for December 31, 2009. Many initiatives such as Bill C-6 are moving forward under the guise of public safety and would further expand governmental powers which could be used to violate civil liberties.

Resource links:
Bill-C-6
Farewell Canada- Bill C-6
Codex Alimentarius

FLASHBACK:

Bill C-51, Codex and the SPP
(Originally Published on June 20, 2008)

By Dana Gabriel

On April 8, 2008, Canada's Health Minister introduced Bill C-51 which proposed sweeping changes to the Food and Drugs Act. The Canadian government has since been forced to make amendments because of intense grassroots pressure. There are fears that this Bill could lead to some vitamins, herbs, minerals, and dietary supplements no longer being available in the country. Through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are already busy harmonizing food and drug regulations into a North American Union structure. Some have suggested that this Bill would also bring Canadian law into compliance with the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Bill C-51 has the potential to take away the rights of people to freely choose natural medicine as an alternative to expensive drug-based products and treatments.

Bill C-51 will further encroach on civil liberties and increase police state measures. There is reason for concern because of the Bills ambiguous language in regards to raids and seizures. It has been referred to as a police state bill masquerading as a health bill. It will make it easier for Canadian officials to seize natural health products and remove them from store shelves. It grants inspectors the power to raid homes and businesses without a warrant and the power to seize bank accounts and property. Some might recall that in the early 90's, the FDA engaged in paramilitary raids on American health food stores, holistic treatment centers, and other nutritional supplement businesses. This behavior created such a public outcry and backlash, leading Congress to pass the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to protect the right of American consumers to purchase and use nutritional supplements.

If the Harper Conservative government thought that they were going to quietly pass Bill C-51, were they ever wrong. When word hit the Internet and blogosphere that up to 60% of natural health products currently sold in Canada could be outlawed, it sparked a swift and strong public reaction. In Bill C-51, the word drug has been replaced with "therapeutic products" and gives the government broad reaching powers to further regulate their sale. Health Minister Tony Clement has vowed to change the parts that lumped natural medicines in with pharmaceutical drugs. This includes a clearer definition of natural health products into the Food and Drugs Act. There have been other amendments made, but there are still many concerns surrounding Bill C-51. It might be safer to do away with it in its entirety and start from scratch.

It is the SPP working groups that are harmonizing regulations and laws, writing out policy initiatives and recommendations. They are the real power, laying the foundation for a North American Union. Part of the SPP calls for the "Identification and appropriate adoption of best practices in maintaining the safety, efficacy and quality of pharmaceutical products." NDP MP Peter Julian said in the House of Commons that, "Bill C-51 would limit access to many health products and allow the fast-tracking of new drugs that have not been proven safe. Bill C-51 blends in with the SPP agenda, which is about harmonizing regulations across the board with the United States, resulting in lower standards." There are fears that Bill C-51 will bring about a more U.S. style approach to food, drugs, and consumer product safety. This includes turning more power over to the drug companies with increased reliance on their testing and research. These same drug manufacturers would themselves be more responsible in fast-tracking the drug approval process and further looking after any safety concerns once the drug has hit the market. Under the Trilateral Cooperation Charter, the FDA is also working with Canada and Mexico in further harmonizing regulations between the three countries.

It is not just through the SPP and the Trilateral Cooperation Charter that the harmonizing of food and drugs is being achieved. The Codex Alimentarius Commission which is part of the United Nations is setting international guidelines for food products including dietary supplements. They are using muscle provided by the World Trade Organization to undermine and bypass domestic laws. Section Six of CAFTA talks about using the Codex codes as the regulatory standard for all signing nations. It is through the Codex guidelines that vitamins, minerals, and other natural supplements could become limited and even banned. Some fear that Bill C-51 is an attempt to place Canada under Codex control.

Many argue that Bill C-51 is unnecessary, and that there are already laws in place to protect consumers from natural health products. It's not about keeping Canadians safe, it's about further harmonizing our health and safety regulations into a North American Union. How can fast-tracking potentially dangerous new drugs and at the same time outlawing some beneficial natural medicines be good for anyone? One must understand that it is also about ensuring huge profits for Big Pharma. Bill C-51 should be rejected on the grounds that it threatens the ability of Canadians to choose alternative health products and treatments.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Police State Canada 2010 and the Dark Side of the Olympics

2009-10-11T17:36:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

The 2010 Winter Olympic Games will be held in Vancouver, British Columbia, from February 12-28. It will be the largest security operation in Canadian history. Military planners will undoubtedly use it as a template for securing future high profile events. Canadian security officials continue to work closely with their American counterparts in preparation for the test that the Games will pose to the security of its shared border. Integration of Canada’s security and military structures with the U.S. have already been advanced through the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), NORTHCOM, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the Bi-National Planning Group, the Civil Assistance Plan, as well as other initiatives. Training and security provisions for the Olympics might be used to further accelerate the merging of U.S-Canada command structures and the militarization of North America. The 2010 Olympics will be a hellhole of police state measures with far-reaching effects that could remain in place long after the Games are finished.

Security planners have followed a graduated process in preparation for the 2010 Olympic Games. This includes the Olympic Integrated Exercise Program which “is designed to ensure coordinated responses are sufficiently tested in preparation for incidents that might arise during the 2010 Winter Games. The program has three key components.” Exercise Bronze was held in November 2008. It brought together all agencies involved with security for the games and examined security structures. Exercise Silver was held in February of 2009 and “focused on information-sharing across government and non-governmental agencies” as well as providing “safety and security participants with hands-on experience.” Exercise Gold is scheduled for November of this year and will confirm readiness for the Games. There has been questions whether Exercise Gold would involve American forces. The Canadian Defense Department has responded, “Yes. NORAD is a bi-national command that includes both Canadian and American personnel and equipment. NORAD will be participating in exercise Gold. Various US military headquarters and operations centres will be exercising with Canada Command during exercise Gold, through exercise Determined Dragon (a Canadian Forces exercise) and exercise Vigilant Shield (a US military exercise). In addition, a small number of US military liaison officers will be participating with Joint Task Force Games.”

In September of 2008, the 2010 Winter Olympics security preparations spending bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. This included funding for construction of the Olympic Coordination Center in Bellingham, Washington. Members of the 2010 Olympic Security Planning Committee have stated that, “The 2010 Olympics Security Coordination Center will coordinate the security efforts for over 40 federal, state and local agencies on the U.S. side of the U.S. – Canadian border. This facility will provide a strategic response platform to facilitate critical response efforts during the Olympic Games and beyond”. In September of this year, NORAD conducted Exercise Fabric Virgo, which involved CF-18 fighter jets flying at low altitudes and escorting civilian-looking aircraft. This exercise was designed to familiarize NORAD personnel with operations in the Vancouver area. There are numerous other drills and exercises which are planned before the Games begin or have already taken place. Some have not been made public. Training for the Olympics and the actual security operation could be used as a pretext for the further militarization of North America. It could also advance the merging of U.S.-Canada military and security structures. As part of the SPP, there were calls for a North American security perimeter.

The entire security operation for 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games is being overseen by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). This will include over 5000 RCMP officers, along with an additional 1800 other police from municipal, regional and provincial units from across the country. Canadian Forces will provide maritime security, logistical support and surveillance. This could include the use of unmanned drones which are now being used along the U.S.-Canada border. Some 4500 Canadian soldiers will also be deployed for various security purposes. This is twice the number of troops that Canada has in Afghanistan. The U.S. is set to contribute Coast Guard and Navy vessels. NORAD will be a key player in Games security. They will patrol the skies and monitor the airspace over the Olympics. In addition to police and military, there will be up to 5000 private security personnel. Olympic venues will be designated as special security zones. This will include electronically monitored fencing and other measures similar to security screening at airports. Surveillance cameras will also monitor venues and public areas using face-recognition technology. Some residents of Whistler, B.C., which will host skiing and other events, have complained that it feels like they are already living in a security zone. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is working with the RCMP and other federal agencies in evaluating and monitoring security threats and have warned of the potential for violence by anti-Olympic activists.

In advance of the 2010 Games, anti-Olympic groups have been subjected to surveillance and harassment by police and intelligence agencies. There is a concerted effort to curb any protests during the Olympics and restrict the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. City of Vancouver 2010 Winter Games By-laws will limit protesters to specific free speech zones. They will prevent anyone who is not licensed to do so, from carrying signs or handing out materials on or near Olympic venues and other designated city property. Violators could face huge fines or jail time. A lawsuit has been filed which challenges the Olympic sign law. It was filed by Chris Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia and student Alissa Westergard-Thorpe. Shaw is an outspoken critic of the Olympics and author of the book Five Ring Circus. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, he plans to criticize the Games with signs and the distribution of leaflets at prohibited sites. Under another by-law possession of any voice, amplification equipment on city property is prohibited for the duration of the Games. Many of the by-laws are an attempt to quell dissent and give the illusion that everyone supports the Olympics. They can only be described as unconstitutional. It will be interesting to see if any LRAD sound cannon weapons, which were used against protesters at the recent G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, will be deployed at the Olympics. Some of the police state measures being enacted for the Vancouver Olympics are temporary, but others including infrastructure, will remain in place long after the Games are over.

There are rising costs associated with holding the Olympics which will leave taxpayers on the hook for millions. The security bill alone is expected to top $900-million, which is almost five times higher than original estimates. Like previous Olympics, Vancouver will be left with a huge deficit. This has left some local residents less then enthusiastic about hosting the Games. Anti-poverty and housing rights groups also point to the negative impact the Olympics have on the homeless. They are being used to impose greater social control and rid the Vancouver city core of its poor. According to some estimates over the last 20 years, the Olympic Games have displaced over two million people around the world. In many ways, the Olympics have become a political tool, a corporate driven agenda that goes far beyond the athletes and sporting events. Much of the security surrounding the Olympics in Vancouver seems aimed more at protesters and other so called undesirables.

Security measures at the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games will be an indication of what to expect at other upcoming events. In June of the same year, Canada will host the G8 as well as the G20 Summits. Both will attract their share of protests. Canada is also expected to host the 2010 North American Leaders Summit where security measures could dwarf what was witnessed at the 2007 Summit in Montebello, Quebec. Some will recall that anarchist protesters were identified as police provocateurs. There are fears that police could infiltrate anti-Olympic groups, in order to stage events which would justify a crackdown during the 2010 Winter Games. It is important to be aware of those who not only seek to demonize peaceful protesters, but also incite angry and violent responses by police. In some cases, police do not need an excuse as was evident at the recent G20 Summit in Pittsburgh and this could be a prelude of what to expect in the coming year. Welcome to police state Canada 2010!

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

U.S.-Canada Regional Economic and Energy Integration

2009-09-28T09:52:00.001-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

Trilateral initiatives, such as NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) have further advanced North American integration. It is also at a state and provincial level that regional integration is being achieved in areas of trade, the environment and energy.

The 33rd Annual Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers was held in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada on September 14-15 and was co-chaired by host Premier Shawn Graham and Maine Governor John Baldacci. Throughout the years, the governors and premiers have forged a partnership and expanded economic ties, including cooperation on energy and environmental issues. At each conference, policy resolutions are enacted which call on actions by the state and provincial governments, as well as by the two national governments. The current global financial crisis has placed more focus on finding collaborative regional approaches to economic and energy issues. The recent conference included resolutions concerning the green economy, renewable energy, climate change, energy efficiency, pandemic preparedness and open and secure trade. Regional leaders endorsed a blueprint for the region’s energy future.

In March of this year, Premier Graham and Governor Baldacci announced support for a Northeast Energy Corridor. This would position New Brunswick and Maine as energy hubs and link their resources to energy stressed East Coast states. It would also expand U.S.-Canada shared strategic objectives in energy supply and energy security. There are calls for such an energy corridor to be flexible and able to handle power lines, natural gas and other energy supplies, depending on future demand. In an open letter to the Eastern Canadian premiers, the Council of Canadians cautioned, “against adopting a regional energy vision that includes large energy project 'corridors' directed at export-oriented trade. These projects create negative local impacts and undermine energy security in Eastern Canada.” My article Towards a North American Energy Corridor details plans to develop a cross-border Western Energy Corridor. It is through the SPP, that the North American Energy Working Group has further integrated a continental energy strategy.

The 29th Annual Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in 2005 produced a Resolution Concerning the Security and Prosperity of North America. It stated that the governors and premiers, “inform the governments of Canada and the United States that it supports the objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, and note to the two federal governments the importance of involving the states and provinces in the preparation of measures to support the Partnership.” Part of the resolution also included, “preparing a draft action plan aimed at strengthening cooperation between the members of the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in areas targeted by the Security and Security Partnership of North America.”

A recent article by Jerome Corsi reported that, “President Obama is continuing President George W. Bush's effort to advance North American integration with a public-relations makeover calculated to place the program under the radar of public opinion and to deflect concerns about border security and national sovereignty.” According to confidential sources in the U.S. Department of Commerce and State Department. “The Obama administration has ‘rebranded’ and ‘refocused’ the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, to advance the Bush administration's agenda of North American integration under the rubric of the ‘North American Leaders Summit,’ a less controversial banner.” Corsi also reported that the North American Competitiveness Council which is made up of business executives from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will continue to operate under the new structure, along with more than 20 trilateral working groups. They will further concentrate in areas of North American citizen security, economic competitiveness, energy policy and climate change.

North American integration continues on many different fronts and this includes at a state and provincial level. It appears as if the SPP may be dead in name only. Many of its key priorities were part of the agenda at the recent North American Leaders Summit held in Mexico. The push for a North American Union continues as it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama embraces globalization and has no intention of upholding the Constitution or protecting American sovereignty.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Expanding the Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas

2009-09-07T04:54:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

The Pathways to Prosperity in the Americas, which some have dubbed PPA, was first launched by the Bush administration in September of 2008 in an effort to further deepen existing economic partnerships in the region. Many speculated that it was a last ditch effort by Bush to resurrect a revised version of the failed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The Obama administration has continued with the PPA and is set to re-launch and expand the initiative which would lead to greater integration in the Americas. Some aspects of the PPA are similar to the defunct Security and Prosperity Partnership and could spread SPP objectives to other parts of the Western Hemisphere.

At the Pathways to Prosperity Ministerial held in El Salvador on May 31, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged support for the PPA. She stated, “President Obama has emphasized that it's not important whether ideas come from one party or another, so long as they move us in the right direction. This meeting builds on the work of the previous U.S. administration, but the President and I are also committed to re-launching Pathways to Prosperity, and expanding its work to spread the benefits of economic recovery, growth, and open markets to the most vulnerable and marginalized citizens of our region.” It appears as if the Obama administration wishes to put their own stamp of approval on the PPA and further expand it.

The PPA now includes 14 partner countries Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, the U.S. and Uruguay. Besides NAFTA and CAFTA, there are other Free Trade Agreements amongst partner nations that are already active, with some being negotiated or pending legislative approval. At the meeting, Clinton also stressed that, “Pathways should be open to working with new partners including other nations and sub-regional banks that share our commitment to open markets and greater social inclusion. I want to note the presence of the observer countries – Brazil and Trinidad and Tobago – that are here today. Going forward, I hope you and other countries from our hemisphere will join us in this initiative as full members.” If you combine all the bilateral and regional trade deals in the Americas, it could facilitate a larger multilateral agreement. Expanding the PPA could be a backdoor to achieving something similar to the FTAA.

A Joint Statement By North American Leaders from the recent Summit held in Guadalajara, Mexico on Aug 9-10 stated, “Our three governments recognize that we cannot limit our efforts to North America alone, and we have agreed to instruct our respective Ministers to strive for greater cooperation and coordination as we work to promote security and institutional development with our neighbors in Central America and the Caribbean.” Could they be referring to the PPA? The Leaders also promised to hold public consultations on the North American agenda as it appears that they have learned from mistakes made with the SPP. At least in rhetoric, the PPA attempts to balance economic progress and trade initiatives with social justice. They can talk all they want about fair trade, social development priorities and how they are going to listen to our concerns. Until something is done with the flawed NAFTA model which has benefited multinational corporations at the expense of labor, health, safety and environmental rights, it will not mean a damn thing.

An article from April of this year entitled Obama's Agenda for Change and the 2009 Summit of the Americas called on the new administration to announce the cancellation of the SPP, along with its hemispheric extension, the PPA. It pointed out that, “The PPA bears many of the hallmarks of the SPP.” It goes on to say, “The PPA, like the SPP, is little more than an attempt to justify economic deregulation and to promote an escalation of militarism in the region.” The SPP website now says that it will serve as an archive for documents and will not be updated and announced that, “Going forward, we want to build on the accomplishments achieved by the SPP and further improve our cooperation.” Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians reported that as a venue for North American integration, the SPP is dead.

Trade, social development and foreign aid, along with other endeavors, have been used to further promote U.S. interest around the globe. In some cases, this has resulted in shared security goals and closer military cooperation which has led to U.S. involvement in the region. In the aftermath of the SPP’s demise, beware of other initiatives that could take its place and advance economic, political, social, security and military integration, not only in North America, but the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Environmental Concerns Advancing North American Integration

2009-08-21T16:50:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) has essentially been rendered inactive, yet many of its key priorities such as energy integration were part of the agenda at the recent North American Leaders’ Summit held in Guadalajara, Mexico on Aug 9-10. Environmental concerns are also being used to further advance North American integration as the U.S., Canada and Mexico have committed to a more continental approach in combating climate change.

In the North American Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change and Clean Energy it states, “We stress that the experience developed during the last 15 years in the North American region on environmental cooperation, sustainable development, and clean energy research, development, and deployment constitutes a valuable platform for climate change action, and we resolve to make use of the opportunities offered by existing bilateral and trilateral institutions.” The leaders offered a shared vision for a low-carbon North America and the importance of taking aggressive action on climate change, including better cooperation in reducing emissions. In conclusion, it says, “In order to facilitate these actions, we will work cooperatively to develop and follow up on a Trilateral Working Plan and submit a report of results at our next North American Leaders Summit in 2010.”

A more North American strategy in regards to climate change is moving forward. This includes coordination of an emissions trading system. It is expected that a new version of the Canadian government's climate change plan will be released this fall which will be more comparable to U.S. efforts. In a recent article from the Wall Street Journal, one of the creators of the cap-and trade concept, Thomas Crocker says that he is now, “skeptical that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to go about regulating carbon." Many critics of a cap-and-trade system argue that it could further damage the economy and lead to millions of jobs being lost.

An article from the New York Times entitled Climate Change Seen as Threat to U.S. Security states a, “growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest.” It goes on to say, “If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.” The security card is being used in an effort to further galvanize support for climate and energy legislation, including a cap-and-trade system which will be debated in the Senate next month.

It is hard to deny all the fear-mongering that has been associated with global warming. It has become like a religion with no room for debate and those not agreeing with man-made global warming being labeled as heretics. Although as humans we have done some harm to the planet, it is the doom and gloom of global warming that receives the most attention while other environmental issues are seemingly ignored. Whether you believe the threat of climate change to be real or exaggerated it is being used to further integrate North America. Global warming hysteria is a vehicle for social engineering with many solutions being offered that could radically alter our very existence.

With the decline of the SPP and cracks emerging in NAFTA, it appears as if North American integration is in disarray. Let me remind you that the global elite pushing for a North American Union and world government are masters of getting order out of chaos. The SPP could be rebranded under a new name, but regardless, there are other initiatives that could fill its void in regards to continental integration.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Towards a North American Energy Corridor

2009-08-10T10:15:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

As a result of NAFTA, North America is already a well-integrated energy market with Canada and Mexico among the U.S.’s top energy trading partners. Through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the North American Energy Working Group has further integrated a continental energy strategy. Other initiatives are also pushing towards a single North American energy policy.

The Western Governors’ Association annual conference was held in Park City, Utah on June 14-16, 2009. The meetings were attended by three Canadian western premiers. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall spearheaded plans to develop a cross-border Western Energy Corridor. Both have announced that they intend to establish a Western Energy Corridor Coalition to further promote the initiative. The proposed energy corridor would be the largest of its kind in the world. Schweitzer is also vice-chairman of the Western Governors’ Association and emphasized the importance the oilsands play in regards to U.S. energy security with its further development being crucial to American energy independence. He said, “The most important energy corridor on the planet is no longer the Persian Gulf. It runs from the oilsands, Fort McMurray to Port Arthur, Texas.” Absent from any discussions is the potential cost factor taxpayers would have to endure.

A report prepared by Michael Hagood of the Idaho National Laboratory entitled The Western Energy Corridor: An Overview of Strategic Resources and Trends Critical to North American Energy Security and Prosperity was released in June of this year. It states, “The U.S. is facing conventional oil and gas reserve declines, increased demand, increased foreign dependency, resource nationalization, price volatility, underinvestment in infrastructure, changing domestic production policy.” It also goes on to say, “Energy development within the Energy Corridor will require integrating, optimizing and stewarding a diverse set of domestic (and N. American) energy resources, interconnected by a dependable delivery infrastructure, and development in an environmentally progressive manner.” The Western Energy Corridor could boost plans for a North American energy resource pact.

A northeast energy corridor is also being proposed. In March of this year, New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham and Maine Governor John Baldacci announced support for an international energy corridor. Premier Graham stated, “The proposed energy corridor will help accelerate the development and deployment of clean, renewable and greenhouse-gas-free electricity generation resources in both New Brunswick and Maine, as well as help address and support the overall North American energy security agenda." The energy corridor would position New Brunswick and Maine as strategic energy hubs and link their resources to energy stressed East Coast states. Governor Baldacci said, “Exploring the potential for private investment in the northeast energy corridor is a vital next step to realizing our shared goals of achieving energy independence.” Much of Canada’s energy supply is already bound by NAFTA. Any move towards a North American energy corridor would lead to the U.S. further securing access to Canadian resources.

The North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was formed in 2006 to ensure that corporate concerns were being addressed inside the SPP framework. The NACC released a Statement to the Leaders in Advance of the 2009 North American Leaders' Summit set to take place in Guadalajara, Mexico on August 9-10 of this year. In conclusion, it says “Trilateral cooperation on borders, regulations, energy, and other important issues is essential to the prosperity and security of North America. We and the business communities we represent trust that our advice to date has assisted Leaders in choosing priorities and driving progress. Going forward, the NACC stands ready to offer our ideas and expertise, and we hope the three governments will continue with the NACC.” NAFTA and the SPP have further opened up oil and gas production and markets to foreign corporations. The NACC has promoted energy privatization in Mexico and pushed Alberta’s oilsands development with the goal of deregulating energy markets and fast-tracking North American energy integration.

A North American energy strategy is being implemented, one that clearly favors the U.S. and there are fears that Canada and Mexico could become nothing more than resource colonies. Further North American integration is also being achieved through environmental concerns and commitments. Greater continental cooperation on energy matters including clean energy, a shared approach to climate change, along with a cap-and-trade system are moving forward. Unfortunately, many solutions being offered to combat environmental issues are in the form of more taxes and more governmental control over our lives.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

Leaders’ Summit on North American Relations Held in June

2009-07-27T06:06:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

Unbeknownst to many, the Leaders’ Summit on North American Relations was held in Quebec in June of this year. It represents yet another facet of North American integration. This should not be confused with the upcoming North American Leaders’ Summit which is scheduled to take place in Mexico on August 9-10.

The fifth Leaders’ Summit on North American Relations was held on June 3 of this year in Quebec City. The summit was chaired by Quebec Premier Jean Charest. It focused on, “four main areas: the economic context and the financial crisis; North American integration: NAFTA’s track record and prospects; transportation and infrastructure; and energy and climate change.” In conjunction with the summit, the North American SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO) Conference also took place from June 2-4.

The goal of the summit was to further boost North American competitiveness and enhance trilateral cooperation. The meetings and work sessions were attended by government leaders from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. This includes Canadian provincial Premiers Gary Doer of Manitoba and Shawn Graham of New Brunswick, along with Shawn Skinner, Trade Minister of Newfoundland and Labrador. U.S. participants included state governors Chet Culver of Iowa and James Douglas of Vermont. Mexico was represented by state governors José Natividad González Parás, Governor of Nuevo León, Juan Manuel Oliva Ramírez, Governor of Guanajuato, Amalia Garcia Medina of Zacatecas, as well Economic Development Secretaries for Durango and Michoacán, Jorge A. Reynoso Martínez and Eloy Vargas Arreola. The leaders agreed that many necessary improvements can be made within the existing NAFTA framework.

In a Joint Statement, “the Leaders reaffirmed their belief that there is an important need for provincial and state governments to take part in forums aimed at promoting ongoing dialogue on issues of mutual interests.” They also, “reaffirmed the essential role that Canadian provinces and the Mexican and U.S. states have in developing trilateral relations and enhancing North America’s strategic positioning in the international arena.” They are committed to further strengthening continental relations and encouraging other Canadian provinces, as well as Mexican and U.S. states to participate in future summits. The next Leaders’ Summit on North American Relations will be held in Des Moines, Iowa in 2010.

As many are now aware, Mexico will host the fifth North American Leaders’ Summit in Guadalajara on August 9-10 of this year. The SPP website describes the summit as, “a unique opportunity for our three neighboring nations to identify ways to collaborate on shared opportunities and collectively address our common challenges. The leaders will discuss improving North American competitiveness as we recover from the economic downturn, promoting clean energy to combat climate change, and protecting the safety of our citizens.” It is also being reported that the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) has been dismantled but some working groups will live on. If this is indeed true, it does not constitute a victory as there have been numerous calls to replace and rename the SPP. This includes a new report for the Brookings Institution and Canadian International Council entitled “Toward a New Frontier: Improving the U.S.-Canadian Border.” The report recommends that the U.S. move slower on SPP priorities with Mexico than with Canada and for the whole process to be renamed. It appears as if the latest summit could be used as an opportunity to revive stalled measures and launch a new strategy that would further build off past continental integration initiatives.

Interlocking superstates are the foundation for global government. Much like the formation of the European Union, a North American Union is being created incrementally. There are many different facets to North American integration and this deep-rooted agenda continues on many different fronts.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

FLASHBACK: President Obama Won't Change NAFTA

2009-07-22T19:45:00.000-07:00

(Originally Published on June 13, 2008)

By Dana Gabriel

Barack Obama has all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination, with only the formalities of the convention remaining. There is a good chance that he will become the next president of the United States. For all his talk of change, it appears that in areas of trade, economics, foreign and monetary policy, things for the most part will remain status quo. During the grueling nomination battle, both the Obama and Clinton camps were highly critical of NAFTA and accused the other of changing their position on the trade agreement. What is really worrisome is that you don’t hear Obama, or McCain for that matter, talking about preserving the constitution or protecting American sovereignty. The reality is that NAFTA will remain intact, and the push towards a North American Union and global governance will continue.

Obama has promised that one of his first orders of business as president will be to call upon the leaders of Canada and Mexico to renegotiate stronger labor and environmental provisions into NAFTA. Both he and Clinton were specific about using the six-month opt-out clause in order to put pressure for changes to be made. It appears as if Obama has backed himself into a corner. With all this talk about renegotiating NAFTA, the U.S. ambassador to Canada , David Wilkins, has said that NAFTA is too important to do away with or make any drastic changes to. He pointed to the fact that regardless who wins the American presidential election, NAFTA will stand.

With the sharp tone of language directed towards NAFTA, some Canadian government officials became concerned. It was reported that the Obama campaign contacted Canadian officials to set the record straight and told them not to take the criticism seriously. They also received warnings that Obama would be further speaking out against the agreement. Does this mean that all this tough talk regarding NAFTA was nothing more than political positioning and rhetoric? It’s not just Obama as Clinton tried to court working-class voters in the industrial Midwest, where NAFTA has hit the hardest by also telling the people what they wanted to hear.

For years, both the Democrats and Republicans have been double teaming the American people. One gets in power and further advances the New World Order agenda, and then falls out of favor and passes the baton to the other. In Canada , it was the Liberal party who spearheaded the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) initiative, and with the Conservatives now in power, deeper integration has continued. It will be the same with the Democrats, who will further push for a North American Union, and this will not include dismantling NAFTA. Just like the Republicans, the Democrats are run by special interest groups and corporate powers that are pushing globalization and world government. With Obama in office, I am afraid that many on the left will go to sleep because their man and party will be in power. He doesn’t have the political baggage of a McCain or Clinton, and this makes him an even more useful tool of the elite.

In a recent article from washingtonpost.com, there are suggestions on what Obama should do as president. It included using the European Union as an example for economic and political integration. It talked about, “A functioning American Union that pools sovereignty.” It went on to say that this would not be possible by tearing down NAFTA. Much of the economic integration has already been achieved through NAFTA, and the SPP is continuing this process, further laying the foundation for a North American Union.

It is doubtful that the Democrats and President Obama will follow through on promises to fix NAFTA. It is so badly flawed, and a trade agreement that puts the interests of the people ahead of those of multinational corporations is what is needed. With all his talk on NAFTA, Obama has been silent on the SPP and the North American Union agenda. If there are no intentions of abandoning NAFTA, then it appears as if Obama’s change will be more of what we’ve come to expect from our politicians. With the next phase of the presidential campaign underway, I hope that this is not the last we’ve seen of NAFTA as an election issue.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

North American Integration: Deep-Rooted Agenda Continues

2009-07-01T18:21:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

North American integration is a deep-rooted agenda that continues on many different fronts. This has not changed under an Obama administration. Posted on the U.S. Department of State’s website calendar of events is the fifth annual North American Leaders Summit, which is set to take place August 9-10 in Mexico. Much of the foundation and framework for a North American superstate has already been achieved through NAFTA and the Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP). The latest leaders summit could be used as an opportunity to revive stalled SPP measures and launch a new strategy that would further build off past continental integration initiatives.

With the decline of the SPP, other groups have picked up the slack in an effort to further advance continental integration and protect any previous accomplishments. One of these such organizations is the Standing Commission on North American Prosperity which is an initiative of the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce. In May of this year, they held meetings in Atlanta, Georgia where Former Mexican President and staunch globalist, Vicente Fox called for a new era of North American collaboration. He stated, “If we are together, the U.S.‚ Mexico and Canada‚ no doubt we’ll be number one – the number one economy, the number one market, the number one consumer market – in the world.” He also said, “My dream is that we will not have a border.” Fox has been a strong advocate of deep continental integration using the European Union as the model.

NAFTA and the SPP would not have been possible without the tireless work of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE). Former Liberal deputy prime minister, John Manley is set to replace the retiring Thomas d’Aquino as president of the CCCE. Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians called it, “a match made in heaven for the Canadian and American business lobbies that could always count on Manley to endorse their priorities inside and outside of Parliament.” He also said, “Perhaps no politician has done more to further the CCCE’s case for a Fortress North America where business and investment can roam free while citizens in Canada and Mexico endure new U.S. security practices across the continent.“ The CCCE has called for the reinvention of North American borders and has pressured the Canadian government to further merge its military and security apparatus with their American counterparts. Since their inception, they have had intimate ties to both the Liberal and Conservative parties, with many of their proposals being implemented into policy. By his own admission, Manley’s role as head of the CCCE will be to further bridge the divide between business and government.

In his book Open and Shut: Why America has Barack Obama and Canada has Stephen Harper, Toronto journalist John Ibbitson calls for a North American environmental, economic and security accord. He argues that the border between Canada and the US should be eliminated. Vancouver Sun columnist, Barbara Yaffe comments on the book’s scenario of erasing the Canada-U.S. border. “The two nations would retain their distinct sovereignty but there would be no more passports or work visas. The continent would see a free flow of goods, services and people; common rules for immigration and refugees; joint inspection of shipping containers from abroad; an integrated terrorist watch list; a system of security enforcement around the perimeter of the continent.” Clearly, some of these measures would constitute a loss of sovereignty. This also ties into my recent article U.S.-Canada Border Security and Military Integration. It may seem inconceivable, but if the globalists get their way in the not-so-distant future, the northern border could be gone.

The North American Supercorridor Coalition (NASCO) recently held their 2009 Conference in Quebec. NASCO is made up of politicians and business leaders who promote trinational trade and transportation. The meetings in Quebec were attended by three Canadian premiers, four Mexican governors, as well as Iowa’s Governor, Chet Culver and Vermont’s Governor, James Douglas. Some have linked NASCO to a NAFTA Superhighway. In January of this year, the Texas Department of Transportation proclaimed that the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) was dead. The TTC has been referred to by many as the first leg of a NAFTA Superhighway and would extend from the Texas-Mexico border to the Oklahoma state line. The perceived demise of the TTC was more of a public relations stunt designed to try and silence critics and appease Texas lawmakers. The project will be broken up into smaller sections, making it more difficult to stop in the future.

It is through trade deals such as NAFTA and initiatives like the SPP that corporations have further strengthened their power and grip over our lives. Although trade with other nations is vital, the current NAFTA model is badly flawed and unfair. Further North American integration, deregulation and privatization will be devastating for many. This corporate agenda threatens our freedom, sovereignty, as well as our standard of living. Some have labeled plans for a North American Union as a conspiracy theory, but the fact remains that the deep-rooted agenda of continental integration continues.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

U.S.- Canada Border Security and Military Integration

2009-06-23T10:59:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

Under the pretext of the war on terror and through initiatives such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), as well as other commitments, there has been an ongoing effort to further harmonize North American security priorities. The militarization of the continent, along with U.S.-Canada integration is taking place in areas of law enforcement, border services and the armed forces. More is being done to better protect the northern border, but somehow government needs to strike a balance between security and the movement of goods and people.

On May 27, 2009, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan issued a Joint Statement on the Canada-U.S. Border. It went on to say, “We are committed to a collaborative approach to our border, one that enhances our security and public safety while facilitating the trade and travel that connect our two countries.” They agreed to hold twice yearly summits to further manage border issues. The Shiprider Agreement was also signed which allows the RCMP and the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct joint armed patrols of shared waterways. The scope of the agreement is broad and might push the definition of boundary waters. Any integrated cross-border maritime law enforcement operation could include land pursuits and aerial support. This could involve the cooperation of provincial and state police, the Canadian military, immigration and border patrol, along with other agencies.

Back in March of 2008, Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians reported, Joint RCMP-Homeland Security “Shiprider” pilot project to be made permanent. He questioned and rightfully so, “Where were the public hearings on the Shiprider project? Where was the parliamentary debate or political oversight on this and on the security integration measures in the SPP in general?” At the time, no public announcement was made about the pilot project because authorities apparently wanted to keep an element of surprise as to their new border strategy. Later, officials were forced to reveal some of the project's details when U.S. officers were spotted in Canadian waters. The rationale being offered by some to counter any perceived loss of sovereignty is that the joint program will allow Canadian authorities aboard American vessels going into American waters and the reverse coming into Canadian waters. Although it is important to work together on shared security concerns, this agreement could set a dangerous precedent and be further expanded.

The final phase of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative came into effect on June 1 of this year. It requires Canadians and Americans to have a passport or other secured documents to cross the border by land. U.S. officials remain concerned on how risk assessments of people entering Canada are conducted as well as the differences in its immigration and visa policies. The northern border has also become another front for the war on terror and is now being patrolled by unmanned drones. While security at the U.S.-Canada border is being tightened, not enough is being done to protect the southern border. It is clear that the Obama administration wishes to relax immigration restrictions with Mexico and supports some sort of amnesty program. Further securing the northern border could be part of an effort to give the illusion that the U.S. government is taking action.

The Civil Assistance Plan was signed by the U.S.-Canadian military in February of 2008. The plan would allow the military of one nation to support the other during a civil emergency. The agreement goes well beyond any cross-border crisis. Even though it threatens the sovereignty of each country, there was no public debate and no Parliamentary or Congressional oversight. Similar to the SPP, the Civil Assistance Plan is shrouded in secrecy with missing annexes that remain classified. There are concerns that this agreement could lead to foreign troops being used for gun confiscation and a martial law scenario. Increasingly, the military is being used at sporting events, checkpoints and in some cases, in response to crime. Foreign troops are participating in more training exercises on American soil. Many military drills are also taking place in urban areas to further acclimate military presence on the streets.

An increased continental approach to security which includes law enforcement, border initiatives and the military could serve to further bind North America into a single foreign policy entity. A militarized security perimeter could be used to restrict, track and trace our movements. While some talk about further hardening the border, there is a focus to ensure that it remains open to the free flow of goods as well as cheap labor. There is little doubt that having secure borders should be a priority and that it is important to work together to achieve common objectives. This should not be at the expense of our sovereignty, privacy and freedom.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com

NAIS: Farmers and Ranchers Under Attack

2009-06-23T10:52:00.000-07:00

By Dana Gabriel

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a federal program which enjoys the support of large corporate agribusiness farms. It consists of premises registration, as well as animal identification and tracing. It remains voluntary, but some states have taken measures to mandate certain elements of the program. There has been strong opposition from small farmers and ranchers who view NAIS as a threat to privacy and property rights. Full implementation would also be expensive and could put many out of business. NAIS is unfair and by all accounts, would be ineffective. It is yet another way to squeeze out small family farmers and further monopolize America's food production.

NAIS is made up of several different components. In order to receive a premises identification number, information about the location of your animals is required, along with contact information. The next part of the program involves farm animals being tagged with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips. Some are adamantly opposed to any electronic registration and have went so far as to describe NAIS as letting Big Brother into the barn. There is also the cost factor which would place further financial burden on small farmers and ranchers who would be required to tag each individual animal. Some would have no choice but to sell some of their animals, if NAIS becomes mandatory. Others may be forced out of business. Large scale factory farms support NAIS because it would create a livestock database which would be especially beneficial for exporting purposes. In a past article entitled Stop the NAIS, Congressman Ron Paul writes, “NAIS means more government, more regulations, more fees, more federal spending, less privacy, and diminished property rights.”

As a result of growing opposition to NAIS, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been holding a series of listening and information sessions across the country. This is in an effort to get feedback in the hopes of finding possible solutions that could make the program more viable. The debate should not be on how to best implement NAIS, but rather if it is even needed. Some would like to see a voluntary, privately created, managed and funded program with more transparency. Others believe that it should also be market-driven. In early May, joint House Agriculture and Homeland Security Subcommittees held hearings on NAIS. They centered around the program’s role in protecting U.S. producers and consumers from the effects of an animal disease outbreak.

The USDA describes NAIS as, “a modern, streamlined information system that helps producers and animal health officials respond quickly and effectively to animal disease events in the United States.” Ron Paul has pointed out that, “NAIS is not about preventing mad cow or other diseases. States already have animal identification systems in place and virtually all stockyards issue health certificates. Since most contamination happens after animals have been sold, tracing them back to the farm or ranch that sold them won't help find the sources of disease.” Greater focus needs to be placed on huge industrial farms which tend to be overcrowded and present a greater risk to food safety.

More consumer groups are joining forces with small farmers and ranchers in opposition to NAIS. Some states have also passed anti-NAIS legislation. Arizona was the first to pass a bill outlawing mandatory participation in the program. NAIS does nothing to improve food safety for consumers or prevent animal diseases. At every turn, it favors large scale farming operations and places small farmers and ranchers at a considerable disadvantage.

Trade policies have enabled large agribusinesses to set up monopolies and as a result, a small number of multinational corporations control much of our food production and supply. If NAIS were to be fully implemented and become mandatory, it would threaten the livelihoods of many small farmers. It is costly, intrusive and would further globalize our food system. It is important to become more self-sufficient and support local producers. We must continue to resist NAIS and further challenge this corporate system. Food could be used as a weapon and whosoever controls the food supply, could ultimately control the population.

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, as well as other issues.
Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com