Critics have recently argued that plans to form NAFTA Super-Highways in the United States were largely "urban legend" or just pure "hype." These same critics note that many state departments of transportation are strapped for cash and that states north of Texas have no current plans to build super-highways, extending the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) north to Canada.
Currently no state except Texas currently has plans to build TTC-like highways, with designs to build transportation corridors up to four football fields-wide that integrate highway toll roads, railroad transportation and utility zones for oil and natural gas pipelines, alongside towers to transmit electricity to businesses and homes along the route. Moreover, most state treasuries are already strapped just to maintain existing highways. A study by the National Chamber Foundation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce> concluded that even the Highway Trust Fund will have a zero cash balance in 2008 unless gasoline taxes are raised.
Yet key players, including the investment bankers and the worldwide capital investment funds, have a plan to address these fiscal shortcomings with their own resources. On April 30, 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed Executive Order No. 12803 on infrastructure privatization, a move that cleared the way for private capital to invest in U.S. infrastructure projects, including highways. As noted by C. Kenneth Orski, editor and publisher of the transportation industry publication Innovation Briefs, the model has been established in Europe:
In Europe, virtually all major toll road authorities have been privatized. Italy's state-owned toll authority, Autostrade SpA, was sold to private investors in the late 1990s (and will soon be merged with Spain's Abertis, creating a vast 6,700 km (4,200 mile) network of private toll roads throughout Western Europe). In France, the three largest toll enterprises in which the government had retained controlling interest, Autoroutes Paris-Rhin-Rhone (APRR); Societe du Nord et de l'Est de la France (SANEF, operator of the Autoroute du Nord and Autoroute de l'Est); and Autoroutes du Sud de la France (ASF, operator of the Autoroute du Sud), were put up for sale in late 2005; their privatization is currently in process of being completed. By the end of the year, 8,175 km (5, 109 miles) of France's toll roads will be in private hands, according to the French toll road association, AFSA. In Spain and Portugal, all major toll roads are, likewise, in private hands.Capital groups such as Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructures de Transport in Spain and the Macquarie Infrastructure Group and Transurban in Australia are positioned to make substantial investments in the build-out of NAFTA Super-Highways along I-35 extending north from Texas, as well as in the various NAFTA corridors identified throughout the United States.
With the trillions in infrastructure investment dollars needed to build the next generation of super-highways in the United States, especially under the emerging North American Union structure, investment bankers and those who run capital investment funds stand to make hundreds of millions, probably even billions, in fees. This alone is enough to drive forward the NAFTA Super-Highway movement and to make sure politicians willing to support the movement have ample funds with which to run their campaigns and live their lives comfortably.
The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) can be seen as the "test case." The investment world is carefully watching, anticipating that the Texas Department of Transportation will succeed with Cintra in constructing what is called TTC-35 along I-35 from Laredo at the southern border to the northern border heading toward Oklahoma City. Final hearings are being held by the TxDOT in July and August and final federal approval is anticipated by the summer of 2007. The TxDOT plans to sign final contracts immediately thereafter and begin construction. Already, investment bankers and international capital groups are in discussion with state officials throughout the United States, with the intention of replicating the TTC design in the build out of a NAFTA Super-Highway network throughout the United States.
I have previously written that the plan behind building the TTC is disclosed on the Kansas City SmartPort website. The goal is to open ports in Mexico, such as Lazaro Cardenas, which can receive containers with goods manufactured by cheap labor in China and the Far East, to be transported into the heart of America by using Mexican trucks and NAFTA railroads originating in Mexico. A key feature of the plan is to bypass and undercut U.S. labor unions, including the Longshoremen's Union, the railroad United Transportation Union and the Teamsters. This is more than a Bush Administration globalist plan to advance open borders and open skies in the name of free trade. Across the NAFTA Super-Highways will flow millions more Mexicans, now armed with North American border passes and biometric identification, as defined by the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America working groups organized within the Department of Commerce.
There's no objection to the infusion of international private capital into the nation's highway infrastructure per se. With the large trade and budget deficits that we have experienced under President Bush's leadership, an unprecedented amount of dollar foreign exchange currency is held by nations including China and Japan, as well as by Middle Eastern oil producing countries, including the UAE. For some of that dollar foreign exchange currency to return to the U.S. through international infrastructure investment may well be desirable.
In 2005, a Cintra-Macquarie consortium successfully negotiated a deal to lease the Chicago Skyway for 99 years, a deal worth $1.8 billion to the city of Chicago. Just this week, the Cintra-Macquarie consortium moved to conclude the transaction to lease the Indiana Toll Road in a deal worth $3.8 billion to the state.
Ken Blackwell, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Ohio, has proposed leasing the Ohio Turnpike, with the plan to invest a substantial portion of the proceeds into a development fund that would be utilized in conjunction with banks in the state to promote business development and home ownership in Ohio's poverty areas. The "Blackwell Initiative" involves constructing no new roads and the envisioned lease would cap increases the leasing operator could place on toll charges. The plan is aimed ultimately at lowering Ohio's high state taxes, providing an anticipated stimulus to much needed business development within the state. The Ohio Turnpike, even under a lease, is not planned to connect into Canada or Mexico directly, except through the existing network of interstate highways and established border crossing points.
What is objectionable is the plan to form a European Union-style North American Super-Highway system whose primary goal is to establish trilateral links for the open passage of freight transportation and the virtually unrestrained "migration" of people among the three countries. Building NAFTA Super-Highways that effectively erase the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada is a concern, especially if the NAFTA Super-Highways contribute to accomplishing in a de facto manner the integration of the United States into a North American Union, thereby threatening the currently established sovereignty of the United States.
What is needed is a robust and honest discussion of these important issues, with the American people fully involved and engaged in the debate. To date, President Bush has remained largely silent on the extent and true nature of his plans to create a North American Union that can openly be navigated via NAFTA Super-Highways. If the Bush Administration's plan is to create the North American Union and the NAFTA Super-Highways incrementally -- through technical actions taken within the confines of executive branch meetings -- that process of implementation will be inconsistent with the processes of constitutional democracy we currently believe we enjoy in the United States. It's up to Bush to come forward and present honestly his plans regarding these critical issues of our nation's future so the American people can enter a properly informed debate.
Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians," and most recently, "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.
As an example of the giant 'NAFTA Transportation Corridors' to be built from Mexico to Canada,
here is the one planned to come from Mexico to Ontario and Quebec.
Think that traffic on Ontario's Highway 401 is bad now...?
The central eastern region has two trade corridors, one urban, which passes through the largest North American cities and the industrial basins of the central eastern region, and another which is rural and which passes through the Great Plains in the U.S. and through the Canadian Praries.
The urban corridor of NAFTA brings half of the North American population to within a single day.s journey by highway between Montréal, Canada, and Mexico. The corridor passes through the industrial stronghold of Canada and its largest market. It enters the United States at Port Huron and at Windsor, where it crosses the Ambassador bridge, the busiest bridge in North America, to join Detroit, Michigan, where the giants of the automobile industry are located. In the United States, the urban corridor follows "Corridor 18", which extends to the lower Rio Grande valley in Texas, through Indianapolis, Indiana and Memphis, Tennessee.
The second corridor includes the Great Plains: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas; and the Canadian Prarie provinces: Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. A certain number of associations have been formed following the creation of NAFTA, in order to revitalize the rural communities of the central eastern region, by taking advantage of the transcontinental trade flows. The Central North American Trade Corridor Association, The Northern Great Plains Initiative, the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor an the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor are networks of business people, civil organizations and government agencies aiming to foster growth and employment in the central eastern region by means of a direct transcontinental link between Canada, the United States and Mexico. A network of cities, the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership (NAITCP), aims to build a huge regional market by holding regular trilateral meetings between member cities, and by facilitating contact between businesses in the corridor. In particular, the NAITCP has put together a huge directory of enterprises in the corridor, which may be consulted on-line, and organizes virtual trade missions.
Note that the western branch of this corridor extends all the way north through Manitoba to Churchill, on Hudsons Bay. It will be completed just as global warming projections of an ice-free NorthWest Passage are fulfilled, providing a cheap and easy land and water route from Mexico through to Asia.When you are a member of the globalist elite, you don't waste ANY future opportunity to make money!
The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), signed by President Bush with Mexico and Canada in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005, was fundamentally an agreement to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada.
As I have documented below, the SPP "working groups" organized within the U.S. Department of Transportation with Mexico and Canada designed to accomplish the open borders goal incrementally, below the radar of mainstream media attention, thereby avoiding public scrutiny. Congress is largely unaware that SPP exists, let alone knowledgeable about the extensive work being done behind the scenes by the executive branch to advance the agenda articulated by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to establish a North American Union as a new regional super-government by 2010.
The June 2005 "Report to Leaders" references that the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was announced at the Waco summit in March 2005. Yet, the SPP declaration was neither a treaty nor a law. The legal status of the declaration was not much more than a press release issued by President Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin. Still, somehow SPP.gov conveys the impression that the Waco declaration created de facto a new NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries that is designated the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," or "SPP" for short.
Evidently using this quasi-press release as legal justification, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) has proceeded to organize extensive "working groups," drawing freely from the executive branch. These SPP working groups are housed under the auspices of the SPP program in the NAFTA office, as directed by Geri Word, a DOC administrator. The June 2005 SPP "Report to Leaders" makes clear the extensive implementing work already undertaken:
In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership -- Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a series of detailed actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.Ms. Word confirmed by telephone that the membership of these "working groups" had not been published, not even on the Internet. Neither have minutes or transcripts of the many meetings with "stakeholders" and others been published, nor the "actions and recommendations" of the working groups. This revelation prompted a Freedom of Information Act request designed to bring these materials into the light of congressional public scrutiny. I also cannot find U.S. congressmen or senators who will identify any specific congressional examination or oversight that have been exercised over these SPP working groups that apparently have been convened to implement what amounts to only a joint press release declared from the trilateral summit in Waco.
Also found in the June 2005 "Report to Leaders" is that the SPP working groups organized in DOC are reporting to three U.S. cabinet secretaries: Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Comparable cabinet-level working groups are referenced to government websites in Canada and in Mexico.
More than 20 working groups are identified in the June 2005 "Report to Leaders" and decisions have been made to open U.S. borders and skies to virtually unlimited "migration" and trade from Canada and Mexico.
Regarding "open skies," three working groups are working on aviation issues, groups designated as "Aviation Safety," "Airspace Capacity," and "Harmonized Air Navigation Systems." I am told that a tri-lateral agreement to create a North American Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) was signed in 2005, and that five WAAS stations were planned to be put in place in Canada and Mexico in 2005. Implementing WAAS in Mexico and Canada involved sharing the U.S. Global Positioning System with Mexico and Canada. I am told that the three countries executed a Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) agreement in January 2005 to allow for Mexican and Canadian aircraft to confirm to U.S. air spacing requirements. I found that the three countries released a North American Aviation on a Joint Strategy for the implementation of performance-based navigation in North America. This initiative included Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) in North America.
None of the referenced agreements are found on the SPP website. Yet, the working groups on aviation appear to have already accomplished opening U.S. skies to free and unrestricted navigation by Mexican and Canadian aircraft. It could be concluded that aviation authorities in Mexico and Canada have been given the tools to identify the location of all aircraft flying over the United States at any time, including military aircraft. I found no discussion on the SPP website that establishes the SPP aviation working groups were acting within specific authority granted by Congress, or even that the SPP aviation working groups were reporting to Congress.
Later in the June 2005 "Report to Leaders" I found that SPP working groups have already established a "trusted traveler" program for North America, including procedures "to enhance the use of biometrics in screening travelers destined to North America with a view to developing compatible biometric border and immigration systems." Moreover, "a single, integrated global enrollment program for North American trusted travelers" would be implemented within the next 36 months.
These descriptions suggest that all "trusted citizens" of the U.S., Mexico and Canada would be considered "trusted citizens of North America," issued the type of biometric identification that would make crossing the border as simple as passing your credit card through a charge-out terminal at a retail store. Once these procedures are fully in place, the SPP working groups will have eliminated "illegal immigration" for the most part. By definition, all "trusted travelers" in the three countries would be permitted to "migrate," and supposedly to work, wherever in North America they choose to be. Again, there is no SPP reference to congressional authorizing legislation or oversight.
In reference to commercial truck traffic in North America, the June 2005 "Report to Leaders" notes that FAST lanes are being developed at North American ports of entry such that within 12 months "trusted trade" commercial trucks with SENTRI electronic identification will be permitted rapid entrance into the United States. This will allow Mexican trucks carrying containers from China off-loaded in Mexican ports such as Lazaro Cardenas to pass through the border at Laredo, Tex., as fast as a U.S. car today equipped with an E-Z Pass zips through toll stops on U.S. limited access highways. Again, there is no SPP reference to Congress.
SPP "working group" executive branch activity expands over every facet of commerce, trade, environment, and health imaginable -- ranging from e-commerce, to "a fully integrated auto sector," to North American harmonized energy and steel policies, to clean air, a reliable food supply, and "a healthier North America." Throughout the document there are references to "North America" as the province for the ultimate planning and regulations, always with an assumption that the current disparate regulations of the United States, Mexico and Canada will be "harmonized" or "integrated" into a trilateral structure of common and compatible regulations.
None of the many "memoranda of understanding," "trilateral agreements," or other accords to which the June 2005 report refers are printed in the report or listed through links to Internet addresses where the relevant compacts can be reviewed.
What the SPP June 2005 "Report to Leaders" documents is the knitting together of a new regional super-government, the North American Union, being accomplished in executive branch closed committees whose membership remain unnamed. The United States has never experienced a coup d.etat, let alone a coup d.etat pulled off by the executive branch under cover of "working groups." Yet, what has been described in the June 2005 SPP "Report to Leaders" demands being scrutinized to see if that charge is here supportable.
I have filed a FOIA request to get the information needed to determine exactly what is going on within the Bush Administration's SPP policy. Is the United States being replaced by a North American Union? This is a question Congress should also demand be answered. Why aren.t congressional hearings being scheduled?
If the plan is to evolve the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a new regional North American Union super-government through executive action, the American people have a Constitutional right to know the truth. Is what is going on within SPP.gov is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution definition of executive branch rights and responsibilities, or not?
President Bush needs to come forward and explain SPP to the American people, explicitly and directly, and he needs to do so soon.
Last Thursday in a radio interview with the 55KRC Morning Show in Cincinnati, Tiffany Melvin, executive director of North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, told host Jerry Thomas that my June 12 Human Events article on NASCO was "absolutely inaccurate."
Melvin declined to be interviewed for this article, stating in an e-mail her current priority was to answer the "accusations, bad information, and false assumptions" in the June 12 article. "After I have a chance to get my life back and return to a normal schedule, I will contact you," she wrote. "In the meantime, I will continue to respond to the inquiries your erroneous reporting has caused."
What is NASCO? It is a non-profit 501c6 organization that functions as a trade association and sometimes lobbying group for the public and private entities that are members. NASCO is an acronym for North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, which is the official title of the organization. According to the group's website, NASCO is "dedicated to developing the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America."
Specifically, NASCO supports the corridor that encompasses Interstate Highways 35, 29 and 94, and "the significant east/west connectors to those highways in Canada, the United States, and Mexico." That NASCO is organized around promoting NAFTA trade is obvious. Again, as stated by the group's website:
From the largest border crossing in North America (The Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Canada), to the second largest border crossing of Laredo, Texas and Neuvo Laredo, Mexico, extending to the deep water Ports of Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico and to Manitoba, Canada, the impressive, tri-national NASCO membership truly reflects the international scope of the Corridor and the regions it impacts. (Emphasis in original.)From an industry perspective, NASCO is one of the organizations supporting various north-south corridors identified to facilitate NAFTA trade. NASCO has absorbed the former North American International Trade Corridor Partnership, a non-profit group organized in Mexico with similar goals of internationalizing U.S. highways into a NAFTA structure to facilitate trade with Mexico and Canada. The North American Inland Port Network (NAIPN) is also listed as a NASCO partner. NAIPN functions as a NASCO sub-committee to develop "inland ports" along the highway corridors "to specifically alleviate congestion at maritime ports and our nation's borders."
To get a feel of the NAFTA corridor movement, we also reference CANAMEX, a trade organization that promotes a Western tri-lateral route utilizing I-19, I-10, I-93 and I-15 in the states of Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Idaho and Montana to link the three countries in trade. Another non-profit group, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI), identifies four bands of NAFTA corridors (Pacific, West, East and Atlantic), all relying primarily upon internationalizing north-south existing interstate highways into NAFTA trade corridors.
One of Melvin's main bones of contention was that NASCO did not stand for the building the NASCO corridor into a Trans-Texas Corridor-type super-highway. "NASCO is working on existing infrastructure," Melvin told 55KRC. Yet, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is a NASCO member and NASCO supports the Trans-Texas Corridor as part of that relationship. Melvin's e-mail stated:
The Trans-Texas Corridor is not a NASCO initiative. We support the project in Texas, as it solves critical funding problems and congestion IN TEXAS. I know of NO plans to extend it into additional states. It is not the first section of a NAFTA Super Highway. It is not ready to begin construction next year.According to the 4,000-page draft environmental impact statement, the plan is to build a 4,000-mile network of new super-highways that will be "up to 1,200 feet wide (at full build-out) with separate lanes for passenger vehicles (three in each direction) and trucks (two in each direction), six rail lines (separate lines in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail, and freight rail), and a 200-foot wide utility corridor."
On March 11, 2005, TxDOT signed a definitive agreement with Cintra Zachry, a limited partnership formed by Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructures de Transport in Spain and the San Antonio-based Zachry Construction Co. "to develop the Oklahoma to Mexico/Gulf Coast element of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC-35). This agreement calls for the Cintra-Zachry limited partnership to pay Texas $1.2 billion "for the long-term right to build and operate the initial segment as a toll facility." The initial TTC-35 segment is scheduled to be built roughly parallel to I-35 between Dallas and San Antonio. The final public hearings are scheduled in Texas for July and August. While construction contracts have yet to be finalized, Cintra-Zachry presumably holds those rights as a result of the $1.2 billion payment to Texas, as described in the March 11, 2005, contract. The timeline published on the Trans-Texas Corridor website envisions final federal approval by the summer of 2007, with the construction of the first TTC-35 segment to follow immediately afterward.
In regard to whether NASCO intends to rely only on existing interstate highway infrastructure, the NASCO statement of purpose cited above calls for building "the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system." The TTC-35 project is the first super-highway project in the U.S. proceeding to incorporate railroad as part of the design, producing a truly "integrated" and "multi-modal" highway-railroad system.
Do other states plan to build TTC like roads? Most states today are strapped for cash even to maintain existing highways. Still, the investment banking and international capital pools that put together the TTC project are certain to want to apply the model to additional states along the I-35 corridor. I would also note that Cintra-Zachry is unlikely to be building TTC-35 with the idea that the four-football-fields-wide super-highway just ends at the Oklahoma border. Once the investment bankers have the deal sealed in Texas, the TTC plan and funding are certain to be taken to many other states, including Oklahoma and Kansas.
The city of Kansas City, Mo., and the Kansas City SmartPort are both listed on the NASCO website as NASCO members. The Kansas City Area Development Council has directly confirmed that the Kansas City SmartPort intends to build a Mexican customs facility to facilitate out-going traffic headed to Mexico. A copy of the Kansas City council resolution authorizing the construction of the Mexican customs facility can be found on the Internet.
Melvin also maintained that NASCO is "not competing with West Coast ports or trying to take work from them." This argument is made, however, in a brochure posted on the website of the Kansas City SmartPort, titled "Lazaro Cardenas—Kansas City Transportation Corridor Offers Opportunities for International Shippers."
Yet, in March 2005, Kansas City signed a cooperative pact with representatives from the Mexican state of Michoacan and with representatives from Lazaro Cardenas, a deep-port town on the Pacific coast south of the Baha peninsula, to increase the cargo volume between Lazaro Cardenas and Kansas City. The goal is to bring super-ships carrying 4,000 containers or more from China and the Far East into Mexico so the containers can be moved into the heart of the United States, bypassing the West Coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Right now transportation costs about double the cost of cheap goods made in China and the Far East. The Kansas City SmartPort plan offers a methodology for cutting out U.S. workers from the International Longshoremen's Association, the United Transportation Union and the Teamsters. As the brochure explains:
Shipments will be pre-screened in Southeast Asia and the shipper will send advance notification to Mexican and American Customs with the corresponding "pre-clearance" information on the cargo. Upon arrival in Mexico, containers will pass through multiple X-ray and gamma ray screenings, allowing any containers with anomalies to quickly be removed for further inspection.The Kansas City SmartPort brochure could not be more explicit: "Kansas City offers the opportunity for sealed cargo containers to travel to Mexican port cities with virtually no border delays. It will streamline shipments from Asia and cut the time and labor costs associated with shipping through the congested ports on the West Coast."Container shipments will be tracked using intelligent transportation systems (ITS) that could include global positioning systems (GPS) or radio frequency identification systems (RFID) and monitored by the ITS on their way to inland trade-processing centers in Kansas City and elsewhere in the United States.
The plan to put the NAFTA Super-Highway is intended to be done incrementally, designed to stay below the radar of mainstream media attention. The full build-out of the Trans-Texas Corridor's 4,000-mile planned network is projected to be completed in discrete stages, over the next 50 years. This gives plenty of time to expand the super-highway network incrementally, state-by-state up-and-down the various identified NAFTA corridors.
The plan to create a North American Union as a regional government in 2010 is directly stated only in the May 2005 task force report, "Building a North American Community." Still, we must examine how the Security and Prosperity Partnership signed by President Bush with Mexico and Canada in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005, is being implemented. We find that government offices such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership working groups being organized within the U.S. Department of Commerce are signing trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements with Mexico and Canada consistent with the goal of fulfilling the CFR's dream to bring about a North American Union by 2010.
We find the same here. NASCO is a trade organization that will never fund or build a single highway anywhere. Yet NASCO supports its members and NASCO members are hard at work building the NAFTA Super-Highway.
The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) is ready to begin construction in 2007, building the first segment of what is planned to be a NAFTA Super Highway stretching from Mexico to Canada. As we have previously written, the NAFTA Super Highway is planned to begin at Laredo, Tex., proceeding north to Kansas City via Oklahoma City, and ultimately connecting with Canadian limited-access highways north of Duluth, Minn.
On March 11, 2005, a "Comprehensive Development Agreement" was signed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to build the "TTC-35 High Priority Corridor" parallel to Interstate 35. The contracting party involved a limited partnership formed between Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A., a publically listed company headquartered in Spain, owned by the Madrid-based Groupo Ferrovial, and a San Antonio-based construction company, Zachry Construction Corp.
The Comprehensive Development Agreement called for Cintra-Zachry to provide private investment of $6 billion "to fully design, construct and operate a four-lane 316 mile toll road between Dallas and San Antonio for up to 50 years as the initial segment of TTC-35." For this, Cintra-Zachry paid Texas $1.2 billion for the long-term right to build and operate the initial segment as a toll facility. The contract envisioned that Cintra-Zachry would develop a plan to build the entire TTC from Laredo to the border of Oklahoma, along Interstate 35, with the intention to connect into an Oklahoma constructed segment of the NAFTA Super Corridor. The development plan called for Cintra-Zachry to specify the near term five-year plan (2005-2010), mid-term (2010-2025), and long-term (after 2025), in what was envisioned to be a 50-year project involving the construction of a network of TTC roads throughout Texas.
In April 2006, TxDOT released a 4,000 page Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for what was described as the "Trans-Texas Corridor - 35 (TTC-35) Oklahoma to Mexico/Gulf Coast Element," a title consistent with the goal to build a new highway parallel to I-35, designed to connect Mexico into a U.S. corridor that would continue with the Oklahoma segment of a NAFTA Super Corridor extending ultimately to Canada.
The April 2006 EIS made clear that Cintra-Zachry had expanded the original corridor concept to the ultimate plan of building a 1,200 foot-wide (approximately four football fields wide) complex involving ten lanes of highway -- five lanes in each direction, north and south, with three lanes in each direction reserved for passenger vehicles and two separate lanes reserved for trucks. The EIS design included six rail lines running parallel to the highway, with separate rail lines in each direction for high-speed rail, commuter rail, and freight rail. Finally, the design called for a 200-foot wide utility corridor that include pipelines for oil and natural gas, pipelines for both water, cables for telecommunications and data, as well as electricity towers running the length of the TTC.
The international design of the TTC was made clear by the EIS statement of purpose:
The purpose of TTC-35 is: To improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people; address the anticipated transportation needs of Texas from the Texas/Oklahoma state line to the Texas/Mexico border and/or Texas Gulf Coast along the I-35 corridor for the next 20 to 50 years; and, sustain and enhance the economic vitality of the State of Texas. (EIS Executive Summary, page ES-3)An artist's rendition presented in the EIS showed what the full build-out would look like.
The design of the NAFTA Super Corridor calls for the border crossing at Laredo to be no more than a speed-bump. Already, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America working committees organized within the Department of Commerce have determined that Mexican trucks traveling in FAST lanes will typically be screened only by SENTRI system electronic checks. The first customs stop is a Mexican customs stop that is being built in Kansas City at a cost of $3 million to U.S. taxpayers. A brochure on the website of Kansas City's Smart Port describes the ultimate goal to bring containers from the Far East and China into Mexican ports, such as Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoremen's union in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and to transport the containers via Mexican railroads and trucks into the U.S. over the NAFTA Super Corridor, bypassing the United Transportation Union and the Teamsters.
TxDOT is planning on holding public hearings on TTC-35 beginning in July 2006. Yet, from examining the agenda of the public hearings, the focus seems more aimed at modifying routes and expressing concerns about design. With a signed contract in place with Cintra-Zachry and with money having been accepted by TxDOT for building the road, stopping the road at this point does not seem to be a question that the TxDOT considers on the table. Comments at the public hearings may modify design issues, but from every indication, construction of TTC-35 is scheduled to begin in 2007.
After the Kelo et al. v. City of New London by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2005, TxDOT will not have to worry about obtaining whatever 584,000 acres would be needed to build a 4,000 mile network of the TTC super-highways. Kelo determined that a governmental entity could exercise eminent domain to force private property owners to sell their land for economic development, even if the development envisioned were to be undertaken by a private entity, such as the Cintra-Zachry limited partnership.
The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor's NAFTA business.
Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors "trial" to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN's Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.
On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California's MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.
While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about "hate crimes" legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.
Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, "When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn't know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get." Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.
Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled "Building a North American Community" was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada's then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.
The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a "permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution" as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:
The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA's dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union "Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment." Pastor understands that a "permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law." Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.
When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor's solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: "Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths."
Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor's testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: "Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules." Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.
The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:
We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.
Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.
Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman's Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation's most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new "SENTRI" system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.
As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready to begin construction next year. Various U.S. government agencies, dozens of state agencies, and scores of private NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have been working behind the scenes to create the NAFTA Super Highway, despite the lack of comment on the plan by President Bush. The American public is largely asleep to this key piece of the coming "North American Union" that government planners in the new trilateral region of United States, Canada and Mexico are about to drive into reality.
Just examine the following websites to get a feel for the magnitude of NAFTA Super Highway planning that has been going on without any new congressional legislation directly authorizing the construction of the planned international corridor through the center of the country.
NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., is a "non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America." Where does that sentence say anything about the USA? Still, NASCO has received $2.5 million in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation to plan the NAFTA Super Highway as a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. One glance at the map of the NAFTA Super Highway on the front page of the NASCO website will make clear that the design is to connect Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into one transportation system.
Kansas City SmartPort Inc. is an "investor based organization supported by the public and private sector" to create the key hub on the NAFTA Super Highway. At the Kansas City SmartPort, the containers from the Far East can be transferred to trucks going east and west, dramatically reducing the ground transportation time dropping the containers off in Los Angeles or Long Beach involves for most of the country. A brochure on the SmartPort website describes the plan in glowing terms: "For those who live in Kansas City, the idea of receiving containers nonstop from the Far East by way of Mexico may sound unlikely, but later this month that seemingly far-fetched notion will become a reality."
The U.S. government has housed within the Department of Commerce (DOC) an "SPP office" that is dedicated to organizing the many working groups laboring within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to create the regulatory reality for the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP agreement was signed by Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005. According to the DOC website, a U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning has finalized a plan such that "(m)ethods for detecting bottlenecks on the U.S.-Mexico border will be developed and low cost/high impact projects identified in bottleneck studies will be constructed or implemented." The report notes that new SENTRI travel lanes on the Mexican border will be constructed this year. The border at Laredo should be reduced to an electronic speed bump for the Mexican trucks containing goods from the Far East to enter the U.S. on their way to the Kansas City SmartPort.
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is overseeing the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) as the first leg of the NAFTA Super Highway. A 4,000-page environmental impact statement has already been completed and public hearings are scheduled for five weeks, beginning next month, in July 2006. The billions involved will be provided by a foreign company, Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. of Spain. As a consequence, the TTC will be privately operated, leased to the Cintra consortium to be operated as a toll-road.
The details of the NAFTA Super Highway are hidden in plan view. Still, Bush has not given speeches to bring the NAFTA Super Highway plans to the full attention of the American public. Missing in the move toward creating a North American Union is the robust public debate that preceded the decision to form the European Union. All this may be for calculated political reasons on the part of the Bush Administration.
A good reason Bush does not want to secure the border with Mexico may be that the administration is trying to create express lanes for Mexican trucks to bring containers with cheap Far East goods into the heart of the U.S., all without the involvement of any U.S. union workers on the docks or in the trucks.
In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.
SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.
Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:
In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.
Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:
The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as "our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles ..." or "we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding ...," or "we have signed a declaration of intent ..." etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.
What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.
Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups' agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.
Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as "a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America."
The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled "Building a North American Community."
The Task Force's central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:
Its (the North American Community's) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the "Amero," the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:
While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d'etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government's desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)
Without announcing his intentions to do so, President Bush has decided to support the creation of a North American Union through a process of governmental regulations, never having to bring the issue before the American people for a clear referendum or vote.
The Bush Administration has decided to "back-door" the creation of a North American Union political entity that would effectively erase our borders with Mexico and Canada and create several super-regional governing bodies that would have jurisdiction over the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.
This analysis has been advanced by economist Miguel Pickard at the Center for Economic and Political Research for Community Action (CIEPAC) in Chiapas, Mexico. Writing for the International Relations Center in New Mexico, Pickard explains how what he calls "NAFTA Plus" is being put in place by political elites in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, largely without explanation to or understanding by the public in any of the three countries:
Contrary to NAFTA, whose tenets were laid out in a single negotiated treaty subjected to at least cursory review by the legislatures of the participating countries, NAFTA Plus is more the elites' shared vision of what a merged future will look like. Their ideas are being implemented through the signing of "regulations," not subject to citizens' review. The vision may initially have been labeled NAFTA Plus, but the name gives a mistaken impression of what is at hand, since there will be no single treaty text, no unique label to facilitate keeping tabs. Perhaps for this reason, some civil society groups are calling the phenomenon by another name, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPPNA), an official sobriquet for the summits held by the three chief executives to agree on the future of "North America."We have previously discussed the March 2005 summit in Waco, Tex., where President Bush, President Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Martin made their joint statement announcing the formation of "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP). The Department of Commerce documents the extensive working agenda undertaken by the U.S. government to implement the SPP directive.
Miguel Packard goes on to note that Bush has signed onto the North American Union agenda:
After initially rejecting it, the idea of a "North American community" has come of age among U.S. government strategists and a convinced George W. Bush is now vigorously pushing it forward.We have also pointed to the Council on Foreign Relations' (CFR) task force report entitled "Building a North American Community" that contains the blueprint for creating a North American Union by 2010. The CFR task force report makes clear that a fundamental goal of the contemplated North American Union would be to redefine boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. Packard argues that a driving reason Bush has embraced the idea of creating the North American Union is to secure natural resources -- Canadian water as well as oil and natural from both Canada and Mexico. Regarding water, Packard notes that "Bush declared that Canada's water was part of the United States' energy security." As evidence, he cites "mega-projects" proposed by the U.S., such as a "Grand Canal" that would transport "plentiful water from Canadian rivers and lakes to the Great Lakes." Regarding oil and natural gas, Packard comments that a North American Union would "guarantee a relatively cheap flow of oil," making the idea of creating a single North American space suddenly "not so ludicrous."
Packard documents the extensive work the CFR independent task force (ITF) took to create their blueprint report. ITF had three meetings, in Toronto (October 2004), New York (December 2004), and Monterrey (February 2005), before releasing their final report (May 2005), just after the Waco trilateral meeting. A key adviser to ITF was Robert Pastor, director of the Center for North American Studies at American University. Even though Pastor supported John Kerry for President in 2004, he ends up having a major impact on Bush as the current administration moves forward to implement the CFR plan to form a North American Union.
Even before joining the ITF as vice chair, Pastor was preaching the need for the North American Union to have a political agenda. In a speech titled "A Modest Proposal" in snide homage to Jonathan Swift, Pastor told the Trilateral Commission in 2002 that the North American Union needed to implement a series of political proposals which would have authority over the sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico. Specifically, Pastor called for the creation of North American passports and a North American Customs and Immigrations, which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security. A North American Parliamentary Group would oversee the U.S. Congress. A Permanent Court on Trade and Investment would resolve disputes within NAFTA, exerting final authority over the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court. A North American Commission would "develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure."
Pastor also advocated the creation of a new currency, the "Amero," to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso, much as the Euro replaced the currencies of the individual participating countries. The creation of the Amero had first been proposed by economist Herbert Grubel in a 1999 report to the Canadian Fraser Institute calling for a "North American Monetary Union."
Bush's determination to press for a North American Union may well be a key reason the Bush Administration has not secured our border with Mexico. Since 1986, important law enforcement provisions of our various immigration laws have been largely ignored, while "amnesty" provisions have grandfathered millions of illegal aliens to stay and gain citizenship.
The Bush Administration has supported adding enforcement to the Kennedy-McCain bill (S. 2611) currently being debated in the Senate. Are provisions to build a 370-mile wall and to send the National Guard to the border being added merely to look tough, with the real goal being to legalize the 12 million illegal aliens the administration admits are already in the country? Conservatives in the Senate and the House must demand be answers before final votes are taken and a conference committee sets to work.
What is your goal, Mr. President, to establish a North American Union where the border with Mexico is erased, or to secure the border once and for all, such that the invasion of Mexico's underclass into America stops?
The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex., between President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin.
A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a "trilateral partnership" that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:
We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.A working agenda was established:
We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.The U.S. Department of Commerce has produced a SPP website, which documents how the U.S. has implemented the SPP directive into an extensive working agenda.
Following the March 2005 meeting in Waco, Tex., the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published in May 2005 a task force report titled "Building a North American Community." We have already documented that this CFR task force report calls for a plan to create by 2010 a redefinition of boundaries such that the primary immigration control will be around the three countries of the North American Union, not between the three countries. We have argued that a likely reason President Bush has not secured our border with Mexico is that the administration is pushing for the establishment of the North American Union.
The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues. In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:
NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.Pastor was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report "Building a North American Union."This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.
Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that "a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law." The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from "irritating" and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.
Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security.
Pastor's 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor's thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the "Amero," a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.
If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the "Amero," we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half of the Red State majority he needed to win re-election. Pursuing any plan that would legalize the conservatively estimated 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States could well spell election disaster for the Republican Party in 2006, especially for the House of Representative where every seat is up for grabs.