| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Border talks called `Disturbing' |
| 2005-02-17 |
| Via Bros. Judd - GACK! An influential tri-national panel has considered a raft of bold proposals for an integrated North America, including a continental customs union, single passport and contiguous security perimeter. According to a confidential internal summary from the first of three meetings of the Task Force on the Future of North America, discussions also broached the possibility of lifting trade exemptions on cultural goods and Canadian water exports. Those last two suggestions were dismissed in subsequent deliberations, say members of the task force, an advisory group of academics, trade experts, former politicians and diplomats from Canada, the United States and Mexico sponsored by the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations. Members said the task force's final report this spring will focus on "achievable" rather than simply academic questions like that of a single North American currency. Nevertheless, the initial debates prompted a sharp reaction from trade skeptics and nationalist groups like the Council of Canadians, who fear business leaders and the politically connected are concocting plans to cede important areas of sovereignty at the behest of American business interests. Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow said the summary, a copy of which was obtained by the Toronto Star, was "disturbing" and "shocking." "What they envisage is a new North American reality with one passport, one immigration and refugee policy, one security regime, one foreign policy, one common set of environmental, health and safety standards ... a brand name that will be sold to school kids, all based on the interests and the needs of the U.S.," she said. She said the discussions have added weight because the panel includes such political heavyweights as former federal finance minister John Manley. Thomas d'Aquino, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and one of the task force's vice-chairs, said the summary reflected only preliminary discussions and scoffed at Barlow's concerns, saying insinuations of a secret agenda are "totally wrong." "There is an acute awareness that we have three independent countries who have no intention of compromising their sovereignty," he said, adding the discussions on water and culture particularly "had no legs whatsoever." Federal officials stressed the panel is independent of government policy, and that while efforts will continue to work with the United States to address common security and trade concerns, there are no discussions regarding more formal continental integration. D'Aquino brushed aside the concerns stemming from the summary document, saying "every member of the task force is an independent, the first meeting was basically a scattering of ideas ... a great deal of ground has been covered since then." And where Barlow and others see a sinister plot to serve the interests of corporate America, d'Aquino sees an effort to co-operate in the face of emerging economic powerhouses in Asia. The document talks about the need to develop a North American brand, and muses about the possibility of common immigration and customs policies, closer consultation on monetary policy and integrated security policies. Points of discussion included: "Trilateralizing customs and immigration at airports, ports and land borders." "Applying the principle of inspection, one test, one certification throughout North America" for agriculture. "Treating all North American citizens as domestic investors in each country." |
| Posted by:anonymous2u |
| #6 Oh goody, just what we need, a North American version of the EU. I know already what would derail it. Just say that Bush loves the idea. That will kill it faster than you can blink. Besides, I thought we already had a de facto single currency on this continent called the dollar. The US Dollar, not the Canadian.... |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-02-17 1:50:51 PM |
| #5 What's your beef, AzCat? I don't see anything wrong with that. That means we could actually own beachfront property in Mexico, or own stock in their companies. (I'm not saying the latter is a good idea, just that it shouldn't be restricted.) Currently, what are the restrictions on foreigners investing in the US? Are there any? Daimler Benz bought Chrysler (and darn near ruined it, "merger of equals," My assets) after all. Similarly, I don't have a problem with freer transport of goods. In spite of NAFTA, I sometimes have problems with stuff going to or from Canada. The only sticking point I see would be the unlimited immigration possible. |
| Posted by: jackal 2005-02-17 1:45:09 PM |
| #4 Canada really is the other weak link, Steve. Look at the kind of people they encourage to immigrate. As for the security perimeter thingie, I wouldn't trust either of our neighbors to do anything more than require us to handle the entire load. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-02-17 12:10:01 PM |
| #3 Just a ivory tower private thinktank doing out of the box thinking. A high quality continental customs standard and a contiguous security perimeter are not bad ideas, but I agree Mexico is the weak link. No political union or single passport needed or wanted. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-02-17 8:43:20 AM |
| #2 LOL! Wotta load. This is multiculti think-tank tea-time wank-chatter. Not happening. Probably not even make it to serious discussion until Mexico stops being a third world country with first world resources and Kanada stops being insane - on a wide range of issues. So what, 30-40 years, maybe? Lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-17 1:48:32 AM |
| #1 Treating all North American citizens as domestic investors in each country. There are certainly enough bad/frightening ideas in there to go 'round but this sentence sends a chill down my spine. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-02-17 1:39:58 AM |