Future of North America by Andrew G. Marshall

Digg It

by Andrew G. Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
March 15, 2008

Vancouver 2010, Coronation of the North American “Community”

Introduction:

The year 2010 will mark a very important date for all people living within Canada, the United States and Mexico. The often-cited Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) document, in conjunction with the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), titled “Building a North America Community,” serves as the blueprint for the objectives of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The three above-mentioned “interest” groups make up the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, who produced the report, in which they state, “The Task Force’s central recommendation is 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.”1

Vancouver, British Columbia, will be hosting the 2010 Olympics. A 2006 “Report to Leaders” regarding the SPP states as one of its “Security Initiatives”, to “Develop and implement joint plans for cooperation on incident response, and conduct joint training and exercises in emergency response.” As a “Key Milestone”, they recommend to “Initiate planning within 6 months (December 2005) for a preparedness exercise to be conducted in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver/Whistler.”2 A Vancouver daily newspaper reported on March 5, 2008, that “Canada, U.S. and Mexico are planning a massive joint military exercise in April 2009 “to focus on terrorist events that could affect [the] 2010 Olympics,” according to Public Safety Canada documents released to 2010 Watch via access to information.”3

As the march towards 2010 accelerates along with the march towards the “North American Community,” Vancouver will be subject to the establishment of a police state to provide “security” for the Olympics. In essence, Vancouver 2010 will mark the coronation of a “new” form of governance for North America, anointing a crown upon a regional bureaucracy and its corporate controllers, removing power from the people of each of the three nations.

The Vancouver 2010 Olympics are being overseen by the Minister of International Trade, David Emerson. Previously, David Emerson was former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s Minister of Industry, and when he signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership in 2005, Emerson became an official SPP Minister. He was also the CEO of Canfor Corporation, Canada’s largest softwood lumber producer.4

On November 5, 2003, before Paul Martin became Prime Minister, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) issued a letter which stated, “Making the case that North American economic integration is irreversible and that continental security is indivisible, the President and Chief Executive of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) has urged Paul Martin to take the lead in forging a new vision for North America.” They further outlined their “North American Security and Prosperity Initiative,” outlining what was to become the SPP. Among those who attached their names to this document include the Executive Committee of the CCCE, of which David Emerson was a member at the time.5

Clearly, the CCCE is very much involved with the Olympics, and just happen to be the driving force in Canada behind the SPP, in conjunction with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the US.

Police State Vancouver:

In 2005, an article in the Georgia Straight began by presenting a hypothetical situation to the reader, “If a group like al-Qaeda wanted to make a really sensational splash, it might try to disrupt the 2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremonies at BC Place Stadium. Crashing that event would guarantee a global audience, especially if Queen Elizabeth or Prince Charles were in the building at the time.” The article continued, “Sound ridiculous? Not according to Peter St. John, a security expert and academic who gives confidential briefings on terrorism to police forces,” saying Vancouver is a top “candidate” for a terror attack, and “that back in 1991, St. John predicted in a U.S. television interview that terrorists would one day crash airliners into two high-rise office buildings in New York City.”6

In 2006, Vancouver’s Police Chief Jamie Graham said, “public cameras would help in the Vancouver Police Department’s contribution to the War on Terror, before he went on to dismiss critics warning of privacy invasions with the usual corker, ‘If you’re doing nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing to hide’.” The article continued in stating, “The new police-installed anti-terrorism-juiced cameras won’t be your garden-variety, convenience-store set-up, but instead will be a centralized web of digital recorders linked to sophisticated computers running facial recognition software.”7 The Province reported that, “Vancouver cops want surveillance cameras installed along Granville Mall to help them round up the rowdies.”8 It was further reported in 2006 that, “Vancouver police say the city’s downtown entertainment district is turning into a battle zone and are asking for surveillance cameras to help deter rowdy behaviour.”9

Also in 2006, Vancouver began to test “a new police car-mounted device that automatically scans licence plates,” and that, “The new device uses a series of tiny cameras mounted on the squad car to automatically scan every licence plate it passes — up to 3,000 plates an hour — and checks the number against the police database.”10 It was again reported that, “At the May 17, 2006 meeting of the Vancouver Police Board, Former Chief Jamie Graham was given the green light by Board members to develop a business plan for the installation of surveillance cameras in a number of downtown neighbourhoods. The cameras cost a minimum $20,000 each and can be as more than five times that figure depending on the specific technology used.”11

In July 2007, the Georgia Straight reported that BC’s transit system, TransLink, “has approved a budget of almost $4 million to install “security cameras and video recording equipment” on the region’s bus fleet,” and has “estimated the annual cost for the CCTV system at $470,000.”12 Another police state program was put on hold for a while, as the Georgia Straight reported in 2007, “Plans for a state-of-the-art security system that would link bars and nightclubs throughout Vancouver’s downtown area have been put on hold.” The “new system would link individual security systems digitally so that information on unruly patrons could be shared from one establishment to another,” and that already, “Many bars on and around Granville scan patrons’ IDs and take their picture upon entrance.” Further, “According to a City of Vancouver administrative report, the mandate for ID scanners in bars originated in a May 2003 agreement between BarWatch and the Vancouver Police Department.”13

In 2007, it was reported that, “IndigoVision has won a prestigious contract for TransLink in Vancouver, Canada to upgrade the 880 camera CCTV system on SkyTrain, the world’s largest automated light rapid transit system.”14 An area adjacent to the metropolitan Vancouver area, Langley, was reported to be considering installing CCTV [Closed Circuit Television] at a bus loop.15 Another article reported that, “A San Diego company is meeting with TransLink officials in Vancouver today to present new anti-terrorist technology, including bomb-sniffing ticket machines,” and that the company, Cubic, “developed a system that detects traces of explosives on the hands of transit users.” Further, Cubic’s Vice President stated, “there is enough time to install the anti-terrorist system on the Canada Line before the Vancouver 2010 Olympics,” and that, “He said Cubic developed the explosives-detecting machines in 2004 and tested them in Baltimore the following summer with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”16

Another Province article began by asking, “Will video surveillance cameras outnumber TV cameras at the 2010 Olympic Games?” Some of the “pervasive” and “sophisticated” technology that can be expected to be seen at the Olympics include, “Computers [that] can be used to hook up videos with facial recognition software, information from social networking sites and even data gleaned from hotel bookings,” and the article quoted a University of Victoria professor as stating, “mega-events like the 2010 Olympics attract extensive security measures that remain in place afterwards.”17

In preparation for the Olympics, the RCMP has created the Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit (ISU), which is responsible for security during the Olympics and “is led by the RCMP and consists of members of the RCMP, Vancouver Police Department, West Vancouver Police Department and the Canadian Forces.”18

In 2005, CBC reported that during the run-up to the Canadian elections, “Conservative Leader Stephen Harper was back on the campaign trail this week, promising to beef up military presence in major cities to respond to emergencies,” and that, “If he’s elected Jan. 23, Harper said, territorial battalions made up of 100 regular troops and 400 or more reservists would be stationed in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, the Toronto area and other major metropolitan areas.” Further, Harper also “said Canada currently does not have the capacity to respond to crises in its own back yard, especially in British Columbia.”19

The Province reported in 2008 that, “Some 267 people have died in police custody or in police-involved deaths in B.C. from 1992 to 2007, with 53 involving Vancouver police,” and that, “Of the 267 deaths, 28 are listed as “First Nations,” which Ward points out is more than 10 per cent of the total, although aboriginals form less than four per cent of the B.C. population.”20

The Vancouver Sun reported on internal documents which revealed that, “Vancouver police regularly use Tasers to subdue people who are unarmed and non-violent, according to internal reports released by the force,” and the “VPD [Vancouver Police Department] published on its website details of the about 150 times officers drew their Tasers from 2002 to early 2007.” The internal documents further revealed that, “in a number of cases, police used the Taser as soon as someone displayed a ‘fighting stance’ or simply to get a non-violent suspect to do what they were told.”21

There is the now-infamous case of Robert Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant, who was “Dazed and confused after more than 15 hours of travel, unable to communicate in English and scared because he couldn’t find his mother,” and then was subsequently “jolted by a taser just 24 seconds after being confronted by police in Vancouver International Airport,” then he was tasered again, and ultimately he was killed.22

North American Homeland Security Integration:

After September 11, 2001, the Bush administration created the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, and in December of 2003, “Prime Minister Paul Martin announced the creation of the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Portfolio under the purview of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSEPC).” This department includes “the RCMP, CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Services], National Parole Board, Canada Firearms Centre, Correctional Service of Canada, and the Canada Border Services Agency. It also comprises three review Agencies: the RCMP External Review Committee; the Office of Correctional Investigator; and the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP.”23 In effect, it is centralizing control over a wide range of departments. Also interesting to note is that the RCMP will report to the same individual as the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP. But I’m sure that’s not a conflict of interest.

In January of 2005, the CBC reported that, “A Vancouver man has won an out-of-court settlement from the RCMP after an incident in which he says he was illegally searched by an American police officer.” The incident occurred when “David Laing was driving on a highway near Hope, B.C., when he was pulled over by a man with a heavy Texas accent,” who then told Laing that “it was a British Columbia road check. And he asked [Laing] for [his] driver’s licence and [his] vehicle registration.” The article quoted Laing as saying, “I’m being pulled over and given directions by an American who won’t identify himself.” It just so happened that Laing was also a police officer in Vancouver, and so he “refused to let the officers search his car. Under Canadian law, police officers don’t have the right to perform that kind of search.” The CBC further reported that, “The American was a Texas state trooper working with a member of the Hope detachment of the RCMP.” After giving Laing a ticket for having two different addresses for his insurance and registration, “a different RCMP officer and Texas trooper stopped his car, decided he was driving under the influence of marijuana, and searched his vehicle and two-year-old son,” and “The police found no drugs and despite saying he was impaired just moments earlier, let him go.”24

The report then went on to explain that “The Texas state troopers were in B.C. as part of an exchange program with the RCMP to spot and stop drug traffickers. Called Pipeline Convoy, the program involves training officers to detect people who are lying or trying to hide things from police.” Further, “The RCMP settled with Laing out of court when he threatened to sue for unlawful detention. But the Mounties defend the search, saying Laing looked suspicious because his eyelashes were fluttering and his eyes were flashing.” The BC Civil Liberties Association stated that, “Laing’s case presents a series of concerns – from using unreliable profiling techniques to a wrongful vehicle search, not to mention using an American police officer to pull over Canadians.”

On October 5, 2006, the CBC reported that, “Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day acknowledged Thursday that U.S. agents conduct investigations in Canada but said all are done according to Canadian law.” Elaborating, “Day was responding to a report regarding an internal FBI audit that shows U.S. agents are carrying out investigations without the approval of the Canadian government.” The internal FBI audit “says the FBI has given agents in its Buffalo field office clearance to conduct “routine investigations” up to 50 miles into Canadian territory.” Further, “The most recent audit by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s inspector general, done in 2004, documents the growth of FBI operations in Canada since 2001.” The article continued, “As well as the reference to “routine investigations” inside Canadian territory it also says that about 30 per cent of FBI agents crossing the border to work in Canada failed to get ‘country clearance.’ In other words, they didn’t get Canada’s approval,” and “The inspector general’s report documents 135 unapproved FBI crossings and says there is no sign the crossings will stop.”25 It’s especially interesting to note that the FBI is a domestic agency, meaning that it is to operate within the US, not outside. Unless, of course, the FBI now sees Canada as within its domestic mandate. But not to worry, after all, Stockwell Day said it was legal. Although, he failed to identify what law is being obeyed by having foreign agents sneak across our border, without government approval (or knowledge) on unspecified and largely unknown missions. If that’s considered legal, Stockwell Day can be considered a Canadian patriot, upholding the rule of law and preserving and protecting the freedoms and rights of all Canadian citizens. Neither seem very plausible to me.

An RCMP press release in 2006 reported that, “To effectively combat cross-border criminal activity, Canadian and American law enforcement are taking an international and integrated approach to their investigations.” This culminates in what they call, “Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs),” which comprise “the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the United States Customs and Border Protection/ Office of the Border Patrol (CBP/OBP), the United States Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).” Further, “IBET agencies share information and work together daily with other local, state and provincial law enforcement agencies on issues relating to national security, organized crime and other criminality transiting the Canada/US border between the official Ports of Entry.”26

North American Military Integration:

As the civil “security” departments were being formed at the same time in Canada and the US, to allow for a smooth process of centralization and integration, the military aspects of Canada and the US were being formed, as “on 17 April 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the American Unified Command Plan (UCP) was being updated to include a new regional command – Northern Command (NorthCom).” NorthCom “was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline.” Though Mexico did not sign on to NorthCom, Donald Rumsfeld boasted that it has “all of North America as its geographic command.”27

On May 6, 2002, a speech was delivered to senior military officials in Canada’s Department of National Defence titled, “Canada-U.S. Defence Relations, Asymmetric Threats And The U.S. Unified Command Plan,” in which it was stated that after 9/11, “both countries decided to create a Great-Lakes/Saint Lawrence Seaway Cross Border Task Force. The aim of this Task Force is to target illicit traffic of people and goods across the maritime sector of the Northern Border. Agencies involved in this Task Force are numerous (DoD, USCG, FBI, Justice State, US Customs, the Canadian Coast Guard, RCMP, the Ontario and Quebec Provincial Police, CF Navy, DFAIT, etc.).” It was further stated that, “NORTHCOM’s area of interest will be North America, including Mexico, the Continental US and Canada, with a 500 nautical mile air and maritime zone of responsibility.”28

In 2006, the Bi-National Planning Group (BPG) released its final report, in which they states, “The Bi-National Planning Group (BPG) was established in December 2002 through an exchange of Diplomatic Notes on enhanced military cooperation between the Governments of Canada and the United States.” The Bi-National Planning Group’s “mandate covered a critical period in the evolving defense and security relationship of the United States and Canada, a time during which both countries responded to the new threat environment after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” It further states that, “It conducted reviews of existing Canada-U.S. defense plans and military assistance protocols; drafted new bi-national contingency plans to respond to threats, attacks and other major emergencies in Canada or the U.S.; analyzed information sharing practices; designed and participated in exercises and joint training; and established coordination mechanisms with relevant Canadian and U.S. Federal departments and agencies.”29

The report states that, “The goal should be to achieve the level (although not necessarily the form) of cooperation that now exists in NORAD in all other domains. [Emphasis added]” It calls for a Canada-US “Comprehensive Defense and Security Agreement” which would include, among other things, “Development of deliberate plans for the joint and combined defense and security of North America as well as bi-national civil support; Conduct of seamless bi-national information sharing; Conduct of joint and combined training and exercises; [and] Development of coordination mechanisms, including agreements among the military stakeholders and the homeland security and foreign policy communities.”30

It later states as a recommendation, “With respect to the movement of Canadian and US military personnel across the border for military operations, including military-to-military support to civil authorities, Foreign Affairs Canada, US Department of State, Canada Command, US Northern Command, border agencies and other appropriate military and civil entities should work together to ensure processes are in place to fully address cross-border movement legal issues prior to deployment.”31

It was reported by The Vancouver Sun on February 23, 2008, that, “Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.” Further, “Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas,” but, “The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation in a civil emergency.” The article then quoted Canada Command spokesman, David Scanlon, as stating, “If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military.”32

This is a really amazing exercise in Orwellian double-speak, as he is saying that US forces in Canada would be under the tactical control of Canadian Forces, meaning under a degree of direction. Yet, at the same time, in the same sentence, he states that they will still be under the command of the US military. However, since the integration of Canada’s military structure with that of the US is so far advanced, with NORAD, NORTHCOM, the Bi-National Planning Group, etc., indeed there will be Canadian officials giving directions, as they are placed within the “integrated” military structures. But the structure itself is under command of the United States.

The Canadian Department of National Defence issued a press release regarding the Civil Assistance Plan mentioned above, which permits the use of Canadian and US militaries in each country, in which they quoted US Air Force General Gene Renuart as saying “This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation’s requests for military support of civil authorities.” Canadian Air Force Lieutenant-General Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, was quoted as saying, “The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and US Northern Command.”33

Further, the same press release went on to report that, “The [Civil Assistance] plan recognizes the role of each nation’s lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the US is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada. The plan facilitates the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.” In other words, in the event of an emergency in Canada or the US, Homeland Security and Public Safety Canada would give directions of which the respective militaries would then enforce. In the event of an “incident” in Canada or the US, a North American Military-Security State will be firmly enshrined over our countries. But I guess that’s what George Bush means by “spreading Democracy”.

The press release went on, “US Northern Command was established on October 1, 2002, to anticipate and conduct homeland defence and civil support operations within the assigned area of responsibility [i.e., North America] to defend, protect, and secure the US and its interests [i.e., North America].” It is especially telling that NORTHCOM refers to all of North America as the US’ “interests”, whereas, as a Canadian, I was under the impression that Canada was the “interest” of Canadians. Further, “Canada Command was established on February 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and to offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental defence and security partners.” The end of the press release notes that, “The two domestic commands established strong bilateral ties well before the signing of the Civil Assistance Plan. The two commanders and their staffs meet regularly, collaborate on contingency planning and participate in related annual exercises.”

North American Terror Drills:

A recent report on plans to practice a terrorist-response drill in Vancouver to be conducted by Mexico, Canada and the US in April of 2009, revealed that the drill will be “led by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, [and] is code-named TOPOFF 5. Canadian troops were among the 15,000 participants involved in last October’s TOPOFF 4 in Portland, Ore., Phoenix, Ariz. and Guam.” Stockwell Day was quoted as saying, “Exercises provide unique training opportunities to strengthen our ability to deal with potential emergencies.” The article then went on to report, “An undated Public Safety Canada report said up to $22.8 million was needed to fund emergency management, counter-terrorism, cyber security and critical infrastructure protection exercises, ‘leading to a trilateral full-scale exercise prior to the Vancouver Olympic Games in 2010, as outlined under the Security and Prosperity Partnership’.” Chris Shaw of 2010 Watch was quoted as asking, “Does it mean that if the American forces are training with Canadian forces that they are going to be positioned here in Canada during the period of the Olympic Games?”34

According to Homeland Security’s website, “Top Officials (TOPOFF) is the nation’s premier terrorism preparedness exercise, involving top officials at every level of government, as well as representatives from the international community and private sector. Thousands of federal, state, territorial, and local officials engage in various activities as part of a robust, full-scale simulated response to a multi-faceted threat.” The first TOPOFF exercise was conducted in May of 2000, and since Homeland Security did not exist then, it was conducted by “the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),” and “The primary goal of the exercise was to improve the capability of government officials and agencies, both within the United States and abroad to provide an effective, coordinated, and strategic response to a terrorist attack.” TOPOFF 2, conducted in May of 2003, was led by Homeland Security, in which “Participants in Seattle faced a simulated radiological dispersal device (RDD) attack, while those in the Chicago faced a biological attack.” Further, “The exercise engaged 8,500 responders and top officials from the United States and Canada – the first international partner to participate.”35

TOPOFF 3, conducted in April of 2005, continued to evolve and included an increased focus on bolstering international and private sector participation, terrorism prevention activities, risk communication and public information functions, and long-term recovery and remediation issues.” This exercise included “Over 10,000 participants, including responders and officials from Canada and the United Kingdom, [who] responded to a simulated chemical attack in New London, Conn., and a biological attack in the state of New Jersey.” TOPOFF 4, conducted in October of 2007, in Portland, Oregon, Phoenix, Arizona and the US territory in Guam, as well as with individuals in Washington D.C., “built on past lessons learned while adding new goals, including: an increased level of coordination with U.S. Department of Defense exercises to combat global terrorism, closer cooperation with the private sector, an expanded emphasis on prevention, a deeper focus on mass decontamination and long-term recovery and remediation issues.” It included the participation of “the governments of Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.”

TOPOFF 4 was the “biggest terrorism exercise ever staged nationally,” which started with “a fictional “bang” from an imaginary “dirty bomb” to test the emergency response of local, state and federal agencies.” A local Portland news outlet reported that, “The scenario also features simulated dirty bomb attacks in Arizona and Guam to evaluate the ability of federal agencies to manage multiple sites and will involve officials from the top levels of government, including the Defense and Homeland Security departments.”36

Terror Drills in a “War on Terror” Context:

Why are drills and war games so important to discuss? The answer lies in the precedent of the events that have occurred in conjunction with drills and war games in the past. According to Cooperative Research, at 6:30 in the morning on September 11, 2001, NORAD began conducting a drill called Vigilant Guardian, which was “an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide.” An emergency drill was scheduled at 8:00 am in the WTC South Tower on the 97th floor. Another exercise called Global Guardian, was being conducted by the US military and was based around the premise of a nuclear war. Before 9:00 am, New York’s Office of Emergency Management, whose offices were in WTC Building 7, the third building that collapsed into its own footprint on 9/11 (and wasn’t hit by a plane). The exercise was to be conducted with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), and the exercise was based around a biological terror attack in New York City. The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), whose personnel were drawn from the CIA, had scheduled an emergency exercise for 9 am in which a plane was crashed into a government building. There were many other exercises and dozens leading up to 9/11, which revolved around events eerily like those that occurred on 9/11. The war games and drills also served to confuse all the honest government employees who reportedly thought that the events they were seeing take place were actually part of the exercises.37 Because of all of these drills and war games, the United States defenses weren’t able to respond to the attacks with normal procedures, and therefore helped facilitate the attacks.

On July 7, 2005, during the 7/7 London bombings of three subway trains and a double-decker bus, Peter Power, a director of Visor Consultants reported to BBC that, “At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.”38

It is important to monitor military drills and war games because they can often be used as a cover for the actual events taking place. In this context, the TOPOFF exercise that will take place in Vancouver in April of 2009 must be subjected to closer scrutiny and the government must reveal more details of their “exercise”.

Terror, “Deep Integration” and Martial Law:

Terrorism and the process of “deep integration” of Canada, the US and Mexico are not unrelated and separate concepts. In fact, there is a very close relationship between the two. On February 12, 2008, the Financial Post ran an op-ed in which the author stated, “The crisis of Sept. 11, 2001, provided a perfect opportunity to seize the moment to re-imagine the border,” and pursue a process of deeper integration between Canada and the United States.39

Robert Pastor, an American academic who was one of the lead authors of the “Building a North American Community” report, and one of the principal individuals driving the process towards further integration, told a Spanish-language magazine that, “The 9/11 crisis made Canada and the United States redefine the protection of their borders,” and that, “What I’m saying is that a crisis is an event which can force democratic governments to make difficult decisions like those that will be required to create a North American Community.” Elaborating, he stated, “It’s not that I want another 9/11 crisis, but having a crisis would force decisions that otherwise might not get made.”40

On December 1, 2002, the Washington Post reported that, “The Bush administration is developing a parallel legal system in which terrorism suspects — U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike — may be investigated, jailed, interrogated, tried and punished without legal protections guaranteed by the ordinary system.” The article explained that this “parallel” legal system would include, “indefinite military detention for those designated “enemy combatants,” liberal use of “material witness” warrants, counterintelligence-style wiretaps and searches led by law enforcement officials and, for noncitizens, trial by military commissions or deportation after strictly closed hearings.”41

In 2003, the Washington Post reported that, “A federal appeals court today ruled that the government has properly detained an American-born man captured with Taliban forces in Afghanistan without an attorney and has legally declared him an enemy combatant.”42 The Post then reported in 2005 that, “A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president’s power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges,” and that, “such power is essential to preventing terrorist strikes.”43

Commenting on the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Yale law and political science professor Bruce Ackerman wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the legislation “authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights.” Further, it states that the legislation “grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.” Not only that, but, “ordinary Americans would be required to defend themselves before a military tribunal without the constitutional guarantees provided in criminal trials.” Startlingly, “Legal residents who aren’t citizens are treated even more harshly. The bill entirely cuts off their access to federal habeas corpus, leaving them at the mercy of the president’s suspicions.”44

Senator Patrick Leahey made a statement on February 2007 in which he discussed the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, saying:

Last year, Congress quietly made it easier for this President or any President to declare martial law. That’s right: In legislation added at the Administration’s request to last year’s massive Defense Authorization Bill, it has now become easier to bypass longtime posse comitatus restrictions that prevent the federal government’s use of the military, including a federalized National Guard, to perform domestic law enforcement duties.

He added that, “posse comitatus [is] the legal doctrine that bars the use of the military for law enforcement directed at the American people here at home.” The Bill is an amendment to the Insurrection Act, of which Leahey further commented, “When the Insurrection Act is invoked, the President can — without the consent of the respective governors — federalize the National Guard and use it, along with the entire military, to carry out law enforcement duties,” and that, “this is a sweeping grant of authority to the President.” Also, “In addition to the cases of insurrection, the Act can now be invoked to restore public order after a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, or — and this is extremely broad — ‘other condition’.”45

Given that the press release for the Orwellian-titled “Civil Assistance Plan” stated that the commanders of NORTHCOM and Canada Command, the two signatories to the “Assistance” Plan, both “collaborate on contingency planning” on a “regular” basis, it is necessary to take a closer look at such “contingency” plans. On May 9, 2007, the White House issued a press release about the National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51, also known as the “National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.” This directive:

[P]rescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

The document defines “catastrophic emergency” as, “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” It explains “Continuity of Government” (COG), as “a coordinated effort within the Federal Government’s executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency.” Further, this directive states that, “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator.”46 So essentially, in time of a “catastrophic emergency”, the President, whomever that may be, takes over total control of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government in order to secure “continuity”. In essence, the Presidency would become an “Executive Dictatorship”.

The Oregonian reported in 2007 that Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, asked the White House to see secret documents related to NSPD 51 that were not released in the press statement, and he was denied “the right of reviewing how [the White House] plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack.”47

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on February 4, 2008, that, “Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.” Further, “the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of ‘all removable aliens’ and ‘potential terrorists’.”48

KBR, once a subsidiary of Dick Cheney’s former company, Halliburton, has been involved with and related to many very nefarious events in recent history, including the Rwandan genocide, Congo civil war, NATO wars on Bosnia and Kosovo, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and even getting the contract to build attachments to the Guantanamo prison camp. KBR’s contract from Homeland Security was revealed in a press release which stated the contract, “provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs,” and that, “The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster.”49

Given the close relationship between the events of 9/11 and the speeding up of North American integration, it is very significant that much of the integration is focused around military responses to “catastrophic emergencies”, which would undoubtedly further accelerate the process of integration. However, given the laws, contracts and directives put in place by the US, in the event of a “catastrophic emergency”, any vestige of democratic institutions in North America would cease to exist.

Concluding Remarks

Vancouver in 2010 will be a very interesting time. Terror drills will be conducted in Vancouver in April of 2009 in preparation for the Olympics, as Vancouver turns itself into a police state while the military and security structures of Canada and the United States are merged together to form a North American Military-Security State, all under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Laws such as the Military Commissions Act and Defense Authorization Act are reason enough for Canada to not merge with the United States on this level, but when taking into account NSPD 51 (National Security Presidential Directive 51) for “Continuity of Government” and the contracts for KBR to build “detention camps”, it is, in fact, in Canada’s national security interests to immediately cease and undo what integration has already been undertaken.

Much like how China’s emergence into the modern world community is to be marked by their 2008 Olympics, the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver will not mark Canada’s show of pride in the world, but will mark the coronation of the North American “Community”, eventually to become a Union. I use the word “coronation” deliberately, as a coronation is a ceremony upon where a monarch is given regal powers and the crown is placed on their head. Given the structure that is being set up for the North American “Community”, the amount of power being taken away from the people of North America and into the hands of a few out-of-control elites makes the comparison apt to placing the crown upon a monarch.

It’s a sad state of affairs when one loses their freedoms and rights, not through a valiant fight to keep them, but through secret agreements, quiet discussions, deceitful laws and worst of all, mass apathy on the part of the public. It’s time to speak up, speak loud, and take our countries back while we still have what remains of them, and most importantly, while we still have the freedom to speak.

NOTES

1 CFR, Building a North American Community. Independent Task Force on the Future of North America: May 2005, page 17: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

2
SPP, Security Priorities. Report to Leaders: August 2006, page 27:

http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/progress/reports-en.aspx

3 Bob Mackin, Three Amigos at 2010 Winter Olympics? 24 Hours: March 5, 2008: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/2008/03/05/4909016-sun.html

4 Office of the Prime Minister, The Honourable David Emerson. August 14, 2007: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/bio.asp?id=4

5 CCCE, Paul Martin Urged to Take the Lead in Forging a New Vision for North American Cooperation. North American Security and Prosperity: November 5, 2003: http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/view/?document_id=38

6 Charlie Smith, 2010: It’s the terror, stupid. The Georgia Straight: August 11, 2005:

http://www.straight.com/article/2010-its-the-terror-stupid

7 Kevin Potvin, Police state looms as Vancouver engages in the War on Terror. The Republic of East Vancouver: May 25 to June 7, 2006, Issue 139: http://www.republic-news.org/archive/139-repub/139_kevin_potvin_police.htm

8 John Colebourn, Cops pushing for Granville Mall cameras. The Province: November 8, 2006:
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/

9 Todd Battis, Vancouver eyes surveillance cams to deter drunks. CTV News: November 12, 2006: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/

10 Chad Skelton, 1 in 50 drivers ‘commits crime’ on roads. The Vancouver Sun: November 9, 2006:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/

11 VPSN, Surveillance. Vancouver Public Space Network:
http://vancouverpublicspace.ca/index.php/campaigns/surveillance

12
Carlito Pablo, CCTV coming to a bus in your neighbourhood. The Georgia Straight: July 26, 2007:
http://www.straight.com/article-102933/cctv-coming-to-a-bus-in-your-neighbourhood

13 Travis Lupick, Big Brother Bar Hops. The Georgia Straight: July 19, 2007: http://www.straight.com/article-102067/big-brother-bar-hops

14 IndigoVision, Vancouver’s SkyTrain to Use IndigoVision’s Surveillance Technology. SecurityInfoWatch.com: January 24, 2007: http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/article.jsp?id=10376&siteSection=385

15 Matthew Claxton, Bus loop camera pondered. Langley Advance: January 29, 2008:
http://www.canada.com/langleyadvance/

16 Damian Inwood, Bomb-detecting technology knocks on TransLink’s door. The Province: February 8, 2008:
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/

17 Kent Spencer, 2010 Winter Olympics’ security cameras to be studied. The Province: February 26, 2008:
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/

18 RCMP, Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security Unit. RCMP in BC:

http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?contentId=235&siteNodeId=51

19 CBC, Harper pledges to boost military presence in cities. CBC News: December 28, 2005:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2005/12/28/harper-military051228.html

20 Suzanne Fournier, 267 cop-related deaths in B.C. over past 15 years. The Province: January 25, 2008:
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/

21 Chad Skelton, Police say they use Tasers on non-violent people. The Vancouver Sun: March 8, 2008:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/
story.html?id=35f7b04b-953f-44dd-8001-29708d1c59c3&k=84373

22 Mark Hume and Sunny Dhillon, Questions hang over taser death. The Globe and Mail: October 26, 2007: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

23 Public Safety Canada, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada: Year One. Archive: December 13, 2004:
http://ww2.ps-sp.gc.ca/publications/news/2004/20041213_e.asp

24 CBC News, Cop wins RCMP settlement after highway search. CBC: January 28, 2005: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/01/28/texas-bc050128.html

25 CBC News, U.S. investigations on Canadian soil done within the law: Day. CBC: October 5, 2006:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/05/fbi-border.html

26 RCMP, Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBETs) 2006 Joint Cross-Border Operations. RCMP: August 23, 2006:

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/security/ibets_success_e.htm

27 Philippe Lagassé, NORAD, NorthCom, and the Binational Planning Group: The Evolution of Canada–US Defence Relations – Part 1. CASR: July 2003:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

28 DND, Canada-U.S. Defence Relations, Asymmetric Threats And The U.S. Unified Command Plan. Speeches: May 6, 2002: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1004

29 BPG, The Final Report on Canada and the United States (CANUS) Enhanced Military Cooperation. Bi-National Planning Group: March 13, 2006, page 3:

www.hsdec.org/downloads/BPG%20Final%20Report%20signed%2006-03-13+.pdf

30 BPG, The Final Report on Canada and the United States (CANUS) Enhanced Military Cooperation. Bi-National Planning Group: March 13, 2006, page 5:

www.hsdec.org/downloads/BPG%20Final%20Report%20signed%2006-03-13+.pdf

31 BPG, The Final Report on Canada and the United States (CANUS) Enhanced Military Cooperation. Bi-National Planning Group: March 13, 2006, page 39:

www.hsdec.org/downloads/BPG%20Final%20Report%20signed%200603-13+.pdf

32 David Pugliese, Canada-U.S. pact allows cross-border military activity. The Vancouver Sun: February 23, 2008:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/

33 National Defence, New Bilateral Civil Assistance Plan established. Canadian Department of National Defense: February 26, 2008:

http://www.dnd.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=4175

34
Bob Mackin, Three Amigos at 2010 Winter Olympics? 24 Hours: March 5, 2008: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/2008/03/05/4909016-sun.html

35 Homeland Security, TOPOFF: Exercising National Preparedness. TOPOFF: February 21, 2008: http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/training/gc_1179350946764.shtm

36 Eileen Sullivan, ‘Dirty bomb’ terror exercise set for Portland. KGW: October 4, 2007: http://www.kgw.com/news-local/

37 Cooperative Research, Military Exercises Up to 9/11. Complete 9/11 Timeline:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/

38 Michel Chossudovsky, 7/7 Mock Terror Drill: What Relationship to the Real Time Terror Attacks? Global Research: August 8, 2005:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050808&articleId=821

39 Michael Hart, Canada Blew It. The Financial Post: February 12, 2008:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=302151

40 WND, North American Union leader says merger just crisis away. World Net Daily: December 15, 2006:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53378

41 Charles Lane, In Terror War, 2nd Track for Suspects. Washington Post: December 1, 2002:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

42 Tom Jackman, Court: U.S. Can Hold Citizens as Enemy Combatants. Washington Post: January 8, 2003:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/court_us_can_hold_citizens_as_enemy_combatants.html

43 Jerry Markon, U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules Washington Post: September 10, 2005:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html

44 Bruce Ackerman, The White House Warden. Los Angeles Times: September 28, 2006:
http://www.law.yale.edu/news/3531.htm

45
Patrick Leahy, Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy On Legislation To Repeal Changes To The Insurrection Act. February 7, 2007:
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200702/020707.html

46
The White House, National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. Office of the Press Secretary: May 9, 2007:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

47
Jeff Kosseff, DeFazio Asks, But He’s Denied Access. The Oregonian: July 21, 2007:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/21/2678/

48 Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg, Rule by Fear or Rule by Law? The San Francisco Chronicle: February 8, 2008:

Rule by fear or rule by law? By Lewis Seiler & Dan Hamburg

49 KBR, KBR Awarded U.S. Department of Homeland Security Contingency Support Project for Emergency Support Services. Press Releases: 2006 Archive, January 24, 2006: http://www.kbr.com/news/2006/govnews_060124.aspx

see

SPP: Security & prosperity for whom? by Andrew Marshall

The Deployment of US Troops inside Canada by Michel Chossudovsky

Martial Law, Inc. – KBR: A Halliburton Subsidiary by Andrew G. Marshall

The North American Union Farce

Agenda for the North American Summit by Andrew G. Marshall

9/11: The “Perfect Opportunity” for North American Integration by Andrew G. Marshall

Rule by fear or rule by law? By Lewis Seiler & Dan Hamburg

Dangerous Crossroads: US Sponsored War Games by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

The Military Drills of September 11th: Why a New Investigation is Needed by Elizabeth Woodworth

Bush Declares Himself Dictator – Presidential Directive 51 (May 2007; video link)

Bush Directive for a “Catastrophic Emergency” in America by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky (Iran)

Bush Pens Dictatorship Directive, Few Notice by Kurt Nimmo

National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51 (2007)

Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency by Lee Rogers (Martial Law; Police State)

NAU North America Union

Marshall-Andrew G.

.

.

The Deployment of US Troops inside Canada by Michel Chossudovsky

Dandelion Salad

by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, March 13, 2008

On February 14th, Canada and the US signed an agreement for the deployment of US troops inside Canada. 

There was no official announcement nor was there a formal decision at the governmental level.  

In fact the agreement was barely mentioned by the Canadian media. 

The agreement, which raises issues of national sovereignty, was not between the two governments. It was signed ny military commanding officers. U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) released a statement confirming that the agreement had been signed between US NORTHCOM and Canada Command, namely between the military commands of each country. Canada Command was established in February 2006. 

U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation’s requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said. “Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment.”

“The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command,” Dumais said. “Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century, and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends.”

The plan recognizes the role of each nation’s lead federal agency for emergency preparedness, which in the United States is the Department of Homeland Security and in Canada is Public Safety Canada. The plan facilitates the military-to-military support of civil authorities once government authorities have agreed on an appropriate response.

U.S. Northern Command was established on Oct. 1, 2002, to anticipate and conduct homeland defense and civil support operations within the assigned area of responsibility to defend, protect, and secure the United States and its interests.

Similarly, Canada Command was established on Feb. 1, 2006, to focus on domestic operations and to offer a single point of contact for all domestic and continental defense and security partners.

The two domestic commands established strong bilateral ties well before the signing of the Civil Assistance Plan. The two commanders and their staffs meet regularly, collaborate on contingency planning and participate in related annual exercises.

(NORTHCOM website:
http://www.northcom.mil/News/2008/021408.html

The Decision to Allow the Deployment of US Troops inside Canada was taken in April 2002

While a formal agreement was reached in February 2008, the decision to allow the deployment of US troops in Canada was taken in April 2002. . 

Territorial control over Canada is part of Washington’s geopolitical and military agenda as formulated in April 2002 by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.  “Binational integration” of military command structures was also contemplated alongside a major revamping in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and intelligence.

The matter has been known for more than five years. It has been deliberately obfuscated. There  has been no public debate. It has not received news coverage nor has it been the object of discussion in the Canadian parliament or the US Congress. 

In a text published in 2004 entitled Is the Annexation of Canada Part of Bush’s Military Agenda?, I provided a detailed analysis of the process of integration of military command structures. The Toronto Star had accepted to publish an abridged version of my November 2004 text as an oped. It never appeared in print. Below is a summary of my November 2004 text as well as a link to the original article:

The creation of NORTHCOM announced in April 2002, constitutes a blatant violation of both Canadian and Mexican territorial sovereignty. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced unilaterally that US Northern Command would have jurisdiction over the entire North American region. Canada and Mexico were presented with a fait accompli. US Northern Command’s jurisdiction as outlined by the US DoD includes, in addition to the continental US, all of Canada, Mexico, as well as portions of the Caribbean, contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the Mexican, US and Canadian coastlines as well as the Canadian Arctic.

NorthCom’s stated mandate is to “provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need.”

(Canada-US Relations – Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

Rumsfeld is said to have boasted that “the NORTHCOM – with all of North America as its geographic command – ‘is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan [UCP] since its inception in 1947.'” (Ibid)

Following Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s refusal to join NORTHCOM, a high-level so-called “consultative” Binational Planning Group (BPG), operating out of the Peterson Air Force base, was set up in late 2002, with a mandate to “prepare contingency plans to respond to [land and sea] threats and attacks, and other major emergencies in Canada or the United States”.

The BPG’s mandate goes far beyond the jurisdiction of a consultative military body making “recommendations” to government. In practice, it is neither accountable to the US Congress nor to the Canadian House of Commons.

The BPG has a staff of fifty US and Canadian “military planners”, who have been working diligently for the last two years in laying the groundwork for the integration of Canada-US military command structures. The BPG works in close coordination with the Canada-U.S. Military Cooperation Committee at the Pentagon, a so-called ” panel responsible for detailed joint military planning”.

Broadly speaking, its activities consist of two main building blocks: the Combined Defense Plan (CDP) and The Civil Assistance Plan (CAP).

The Militarisation of Civilian Institutions

As part of its Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), the BPG is involved in supporting the ongoing militarisation of civilian law enforcement and judicial functions in both the US and Canada. The BPG has established “military contingency plans” which would be activated “on both sides of the Canada-US border” in the case of a terror attack or “threat”. Under the BPG’s Civil Assistance Plan (CAP), these so-called “threat scenarios” would involve:

“coordinated response to national requests for military assistance [from civil authorities] in the event of a threat, attack, or civil emergency in the US or Canada.”

In December 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Canadian government reached an agreement with the Head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, entitled the “Canada-US Smart Border Declaration.” Shrouded in secrecy, this agreement essentially hands over to the Homeland Security Department, confidential information on Canadian citizens and residents. It also provides US authorities with access to the tax records of Canadians.

What these developments suggest is that the process of “binational integration” is not only occurring in the military command structures but also in the areas of immigration, police and intelligence. The question is what will be left over within Canada’s jurisdiction as a sovereign nation, once this ongoing process of binational integration, including the sharing and/or merger of data banks, is completed?

Canada and NORTHCOM

Canada is slated to become a member of NORTHCOM at the end of the BPG’s two years mandate.

No doubt, the issue will be presented in Parliament as being “in the national interest”. It “will create jobs for Canadians” and “will make Canada more secure”.

Meanwhile, the important debate on Canada’s participation in the US Ballistic Missile Shield, when viewed out of the broader context,  may serve to divert public attention away from the more fundamental issue of North American military integration which implies Canada’s acceptance not only of the Ballistic Missile Shield, but of the entire US war agenda, including significant hikes in defense spending which will be allocated to a North American defense program controlled by the Pentagon.

And ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:

  • Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.
  • US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.
Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.

But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as a Nation.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has launched a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. It has formulated the contours of an imperial project of World domination. Canada is contiguous to “the center of the empire”. Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda.

The Liberals as well as the opposition Conservative party have endorsed embraced the US war agenda. By endorsing a Canada-US “integration” in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not only becomes a full fledged member of George W. Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing”, it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.

Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington’s pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The US Nuclear Option and the “War on Terrorism” http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html May 2004)

Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its “ethnic profiling” directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.


Links to Articles

Is the Annexation of Canada Part of Bush’s Military Agenda? by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-07-18 (first published in November 2004)

Canada and America: Missile Defense and the Vows of Military Integration – by Michel Chossudovsky – 2005-02-23 (accepted for publication as an OpEd by the Toronto Star)   

Continental Integration of Military Command Structures: A Threat to Canada’s Sovereignty – by Michel Chossudovsky – 2006-05-12

Canadian Sovereignty in Jeopardy: the Militarization of North America by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-08-17

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8323

Martial Law, Inc. – KBR: A Halliburton Subsidiary by Andrew G. Marshall

by Andrew G. Marshall
Writer, Dandelion Salad
March 6, 2008

KBR, or Kellogg Brown & Root, was a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation until 2007, when bad publicity and indictments against KBR forced Halliburton to sell its shares in KBR.1

KBR and Vietnam: Continue reading

The North American Union Farce

Dandelion Salad

by Laura Carlsen
Global Research, March 3, 2008
Americas Program, Center for International Policy (CIP) – 2008-02-27

It’s got millions of rightwing citizens calling Congress, sponsoring legislation, and writing manifestos in defense of U.S. sovereignty. It comes up in presidential candidates’ public appearances, has made it into primetime debates, and one presidential candidate—Ron Paul—used it as a central theme of his (short-lived) campaign.

Continue reading

Orlov & The Wonderful, Terrible, Radical Simplification

Dandelion Salad

By Sally Erickson
Sunday, 02 March 2008

ORIGINAL BLOG POST (no longer available) Continue reading

Agenda for the North American Summit by Andrew G. Marshall

by Andrew G. Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
Feb. 29, 2008

The next North American Summit is set to be held on April 21-22, 2008, in New Orleans, as a fitting memorial – returning to the location where the state turned its back on the people, literally leaving them to die; and where they now meet to turn their backs once again on the people, leaving them in the dark and their countries near death.

In preparation for the next North American (leaders’) Summit, the designated ministers from Mexico, the United States and Canada, met February 28 under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Industry Canada issued a press release February 28, 2008, which stated, “This year marks the fifteenth anniversary of the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA has been a tremendous success: trade and commerce among our countries have grown exponentially.” Then the press release made the statement that, “Trilateral merchandise trade is approximately $900 billion in 2007, significantly contributing to economic growth and increased standards of living in all three countries.” Given the past few months of economic turmoil, record-breaking oil prices, a collapsing US dollar, and fears of a “1930’s style Depression,” it’s a little premature to be saying our standard of living is on the rise.

After giving lip service to, “respecting the sovereignty, laws, unique heritage, and culture of each country,” it states, “we have reviewed progress achieved since Montebello and have directed officials to” five key areas of integration, “Competitiveness, Safe Food & Products, Energy and Environment, Smart & Secure Borders, [and] Emergency Management and Preparedness.”

Competitiveness:

The press release states that they will direct officials to, “Continue to implement the strategy to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and build on the Regulatory Cooperation Framework by pursuing collaboration through sectoral initiatives, with an emphasis on the automotive sector.” So, it’s now time to cement together the already extremely integrated automotive industries of Canada and the US, as currently the Canadian “auto and parts makers export more than 85 per cent of their production south of the border.”

It was recently reported that, “More than three-quarters of Canada’s exports — including oil, minerals, lumber and passenger vehicles — are sold to Americans. The U.S. housing collapse already has slashed sales of Canadian lumber. Now, as a historic decline in home values causes American consumers to retrench, U.S. auto sales this year are headed to a 10-year low, according to TD Bank Financial Group in Toronto.”

So my question is, if it’s the integrated economies between Canada and the US, specifically in the auto industry, that with a falling US economy threaten Canada’s own economy to such a great extent, why is the solution more “deep integration”? Looking at this from a perspective of looking out for the interest of Canada’s economy, if the ailment we are facing is a result of our near-total dependence and integration with the US economy, why is the cure more of the same? If you stick your finger in an electric socket, you get shocked. If, after doing that, you decide to continually put your finger in the same socket over and over again, expecting different results, you’re insane.

Safe Food & Products:

Of this the SPP press release stated that the ministers would advise officials to, “Strengthen cooperation to better identify, assess and manage unsafe food and products before they enter North America, and collaborate to promote the compatibility of our related regulatory and inspection regimes.”

Of course, this has already started to be integrated, as it was reported in May of 2007 that, “Canada is set to raise its limits on pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables for hundreds of products,” and that, “The move is part of an effort to harmonize Canadian pesticide rules with those of the United States, which allows higher residue levels for 40 per cent of the pesticides it regulates.”

Energy and Environment:

Here the ministers state they will advise officials to, “Develop projects under the newly signed Agreement on Science and Technology; and cooperate on moving new technologies to the marketplace, auto fuel efficiency and energy efficiency standards.”

On July 24, 2007, it was reported that, “The first trilateral framework agreement on energy science and technology was inked Monday by the energy ministers for Canada, Mexico and the United States,” focusing on, “ways to increase cooperation on research and development and to reduce barriers to the deployment of new technologies in biofuels, gas hydrates, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, clean coal, and electricity transmission.” It further stated that, “the three countries will exchange scientific and technical personnel to participate in joint studies and projects.” The news report further stated that, “The ministers discussed increasing the region’s energy security, recognizing the critical contribution that an integrated energy market makes to the North American economy.”

Smart & Secure Borders:

Here the press release reports that ministers will aim to, “Strengthen cooperation protocols and create new mechanisms to secure our common borders while facilitating legitimate travel and trade in the North American region.”

Creating “new mechanisms” is the most important part here. On January 22, 2008, it was reported that, “B.C. is about to become the first province to use a high-tech driver’s licence. For an extra fee, it will enable drivers to cross the border into the U.S. without a passport and still comply with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security concerns,” and that, “The enhanced driver’s licence or EDL has a radio-frequency identification chip that will broadcast a number linked to a computer database, allowing a border guard to assess data and flag security issues as drivers approach the booth.” It then stated that, “Name, address, place of birth, citizenship and photo will appear with a quick scan of the coding of the back of the licence.”

On February 28, 2008, it was reported that BC made this move “in conjunction with Washington State,” and that, “Ontario and other provinces with high-volume border crossings are expected to follow suit in the near future. Under the U.S.’ Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI), passports will be required for all travellers entering the U.S. starting June 2009, but RFID-enabled EDLs are being introduced on a voluntary basis as an acceptable alternative to speed up border crossings.” The report elaborated that, “the Real ID Act enacted in 2005 calls for the harmonization of drivers’ licences across states in the U.S,” which are, in turn being harmonized with Canada’s licenses, and that the real agenda with this is to create a North American ID card. Andrew Clement, a professor of information studies at the University of Toronto was quoted in the article as saying:

The EDL scheme is seen as a way to sneak it [the ID card] through the back door by turning state licences, through U.S.-wide harmonization with biometrics, into de facto identity cards. And the Privacy Commissioner has pointed out that Canada’s EDLs will be made compatible from a system point of view with Real ID standards, so Canadians will in fact be enrolled in the U.S. apparatus via licences. There are several steps to get there but this seems to be the direction it’s heading towards

On top of this, it was reported on February 14 that, “the Garden River First Nation (an Ojibway Tribe of North American Indians), headquartered at the eastern boundary of the city of Sault Sainte Marie, Ontario, Canada, has signed an agreement to license and use Veritec’s 2-D VSCode(TM) Biometric technology for multi-purpose cards which will serve as Tribal Member ID, Border-crossing (from and to Ontario, Canada) control and passport-backup ID cards,” and that, “[t]he technology stores the individual’s fingerprint minutiae.” So, while BC is introducing this as a (for now) voluntary move, it’s being introduced elsewhere first for First Nations peoples, then, undoubtedly, for everyone.

Emergency Management and Preparedness:

Under this heading, the press release states that SPP minister will work to, “Strengthen emergency management cooperation capacity in the North American region before, during and after disasters.”

This comes right on the heels of the announcement that, “Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.” It was further reported that, “Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas,” and that, “The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.”

Soon after this was announced, in the Canadian House of Commons, “the NDP couldn’t get an answer out of Defence Minister Peter MacKay on why his government didn’t release details about a new agreement recently signed with U.S. military,” and that:

According to what little is known of the agreement (the actual document hasn’t been made public and no word if it ever will) it will be up to civilian authorities on whether military assistance is needed and whether U.S. troops will cross the border to help in Canada in the event of a terror attack, flu pandemic, earthquake or some other domestic emergency. Same goes if Canadian troops were needed in the U.S. to deal with similar situations.

Calls for Further, Faster Integration:

The day of this press release from the SPP Ministers, the Canadian newspaper the Globe & Mail reported on the previous night’s debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in which they both threatened to leave NAFTA if they didn’t get certain concessions from Canada and Mexico, and the article stated that if NAFTA was torn up, “Canadians would lose their jobs; companies would go out of business, [and] our standard of living would decline.” However, it is actually that, “NAFTA has been responsible for growing poverty, the creation of a new underclass called the ‘working poor,’ and the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people.”

The Globe & Mail article reports that regarding Obama’s comments toward NAFTA, “CTV reported last night that the Obama camp contacted the Canadian embassy to give them a heads-up about the upcoming rhetoric and to reassure them there was no cause for concern.” Continuing on the idea of a theoretical end to NAFTA, the article states that, “Our politicians can wait with fingers crossed, hoping that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, if one of them does become president, won’t follow through,” or, “we can act, as we have acted in the past, to revitalize the Canada-U.S. relationship and turn crisis into opportunity.”

It further states that, “Since 1993, when Jean Chrétien and Bill Clinton ratified NAFTA, Canadian prime ministers have largely ignored issues of economic integration,” which is, of course, an obvious lie. However, it does give mention to, “Incremental efforts at harmonizing regulatory regimes – the once-much-vaunted Security and Prosperity Partnership – have been quietly shelved, left to the bureaucrats to work on, unperturbed by deadlines.” So the problem, according to the Globe and Mail, is that the process of integration is not happening fast enough.

The article then went on to attack those who have attacked the North American Union, stating, “the American economy deteriorated and manufacturing jobs disappeared, prompting xenophobic fears over immigration and trade. Anti-trade zealots such as CNN’s Lou Dobbs promoted paranoia. Their poisonous message has filtered throughout the industrial heartland of the United States.” In explaining a solution to this “crisis”, the article states, “The challenge today is the same; the answer is the same. Prime Minister Stephen Harper should propose a second round of Canada-U.S. trade negotiations.”

The purpose of proposing a new trade negotiation agreement would be for the next President of the United States, presumably a Democrat, and if the Democrats want new environmental regulations, “Then let’s propose a bilateral carbon market based on a cap-and-trade agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” This idea would likely follow upon another trend being set in British Columbia. As reported by the Leader-Post, “Driving and other fuel-dependent activities are about to get more expensive in British Columbia as B.C. becomes the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a consumer-based carbon tax,” and that BC Finance Minister “Taylor said the new carbon tax will begin July 1, starting at a rate that will have drivers paying about an extra 2.4 cents per litre of gasoline at the pumps.” It elaborated, “The tax will apply to virtually all fossil fuels, including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, propane and home heating fuel. It will increase each year until 2012, reaching a final price of about 7.2 cents per litre at the pumps.”

The article finishes by stating, “An activist government will get ahead of the story, with proposals to advance both economic and security integration with the United States as soon as the new president takes office.”

Funny, that sounds like what every government since Mulroney’s has been doing, so how is doing more of the same, activist? Brian Mulroney, who signed onto the initial Canada-US Free Trade Agreement with George HW Bush, has since been rewarded with a seat on the International Advisory Board of the US-based Council on Foreign Relations. Chrétien signed onto NAFTA with Clinton. Paul Martin signed onto the SPP with Bush and Fox, Harper went further with the SPP with Bush and Calderon. Now, Harper is urged to go further with the next American President.

So, what else is new?

see

Ohio Democratic Debate 02.26.08 (videos)

Canadian Embassy: Report On Obama And NAFTA Is False

NAU North America Union

Marshall-Andrew G.

9/11: The “Perfect Opportunity” for North American Integration by Andrew G. Marshall

by Andrew G. Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
Feb. 14, 2008

9/11: The “Perfect Opportunity” for North American Integration

On February 12, 2008, the Canadian newspaper, the Financial Post, published an opinion piece by Michael Hart, of Carleton University, entitled, “Canada Blew It,” in which he blamed the “slow” approach to North American integration on Canada’s policies following 9/11. The article begins by stating:

“The Canadian and U.S. economies have become intertwined in response to demands by Canadians and Americans for each other’s products, services, capital, and ideas. Yet the border as presently constituted protects Canadians and Americans from each other, not from global security threats. It also presents a risk to the wealth-creating flow of people, goods, services and capital between the two countries.”1

Hart states that in order to “address global security concerns”, Canada and the US need to, “develop co-operative solutions to common problems.” He stated to do this, Canada and the US should implement an, “agenda aimed at removing the border to the largest extent possible as an obstacle to Canada-U.S. interaction and integration.” He continues in outlining the steps to be taken in this agenda, the first of which is to, “re-imagine the border.” Hart explains that much of the problems with the border are a result of “regulatory compliance”, as in having a border, to which he proposes a solution in which, “Canada and the United States need to aggressively pursue regulatory convergence,” or in other words, harmonization. He continues, “It is in Canada’s interests to align as many of its regulatory requirements as possible with those of the United States.”

In discussing the security of “North America’s” economic infrastructure, Hart states, “Similar to our interdependence in ensuring the security of the North American continent, neither country can ensure the security of its economic infrastructure without the full co-operation of the other,” to which he elaborates that, “we need to build the necessary institutions and networks of co-operation that ensure that American and Canadian officials are working together toward common objectives and doing so on the basis of constructive political oversight.”2 Amazingly, Hart stated that it is “not a trade agenda”, but is, in fact, “an integration agenda that requires the full participation of departments and agencies on both sides of the border responsible for border administration, economic regulation, and infrastructure integrity.”

Hart continued in his critique of the slow process of integration, stating that, “The crisis of Sept. 11, 2001, provided a perfect opportunity to seize the moment to re-imagine the border, but Canada blew it [emphasis added].” This is a clear example of how important it is for those who oppose the processes of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), and the North American Union which it seeks to create, must also examine the relationship between integration and terror; between the North American Union and 9/11. These are not separate elements of one another, these events are themselves deeply integrated, in both purpose and strategy. It is integral for those that oppose the NAU to review the attacks of September 11, 2001, to see the linkages between them and understand them as something beyond random associations and reactions to one another.

As to explaining why “Canada blew it,” Hart states that, “Rather than work with the United States to address real security and related concerns, and to build a much-better functioning, more open, and more integrated North America, Canadian authorities reacted defensively and anxiously to American security concerns.” But this is a gross misrepresentation, as shortly after 9/11, in December of 2001, “Governor Tom Ridge and Deputy Prime Minister John Manley Signed the Smart Border Declaration and Associated 30-Point Action Plan to Enhance the Security of Our Shared Border While Facilitating the Legitimate Flow of People and Goods,”3 according to the White House’s December 2002 press release on the subject. Part of the 30-Point Action plan included “Biometric Identifiers”, stating, “In the interest of having cards that could be used across different modes of travel, we have agreed to use cards that are capable of storing multiple biometrics.” Another of the 30 points was “Permanent Residence Cards”, or in other words, ID Cards. Further, the plans also stated that, “The United States and Canada have agreed to share Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Records (API/PNR) on high-risk travelers destined to either country.” This is hardly stepping away from integration between the two countries, as Michael Hart seems to imagine.

Hart further explains that, “In the absence of another crisis, only inspired leadership can overcome the narrow-minded response of special and entrenched interests and bureaucratic self-preservation.”4 Then, in revealing the true intent of the SPP, Hart states, “Each group [Canada and the US] is adept at exploiting the default position of incrementalism, exemplified by such initiatives as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Progress will be made under the SPP banner, but at a snail’s pace and without the impact needed to make a perceptible difference.” This is a public admission of the SPP being an incremental approach to “deep integration”, of which then ultimate goal is to form a North American Union. Hart explains that a key source of leadership is, “a business sector prepared to speak out forcefully and convincingly about the costs and lost opportunities flowing from misdirected and overzealous border administration.”

So who is Michael Hart? He is the Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University.5 He is the first person to hold this position, which is named after Simon Reisman, “Canada’s Chief Negotiator during the free trade talks with the United States, he also participated in a series of important international trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.”6 Reisman was recently quoted by CTV regarding the 1988 Canada US Free Trade Agreement, saying, “We got it, we didn’t get it all. We left a little for posterity.”7 Further, Michael Hart “was a senior official in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade specializing in trade policy and trade negotiations.”8 He was also the author of a document entitled, “Free Trade in Free Fall? Assessing the Impact of Nontariff Barriers on Canada-U.S. Trade,” published by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.9 From 2004 to 2005, Hart was a visiting scholar at the Center for North American Studies at American University,10 of which the Director is Robert Pastor.11

Robert Pastor is infamously referred to as the “father” of the North American Union, and arguably its chief public spokesperson and champion, and was the Co-Chair of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, a joint task force between the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) in Canada, as well as the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, which produced the document “Building a North American Community.”12 This document is the blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Agreement of North America, which outlines the overall objectives of the agreement in its goals of “integrating” North America.

Robert Pastor is also on the Board of Directors of the North American Forum on Integration, or NAFI, alongside the Chairman, Stephen Black, who is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.13 NAFI, “aims to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region,”14 which every year, since 2005, holds what it calls a “Triumvirate”, which their website describes as, “an annual North American mock parliament,” which, “allows a hundred Canadian, American and Mexican university students to better understand the North American dynamic as well as the challenges faced by NAFTA partners.”15 Among the participating Universities in NAFI, is the American University, (of course), Simon Fraser University, of which an economics professor emeritus recently wrote an article for the Financial Post in which he mentioned the amero currency as a goal in North America [See: North American Monetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero, Global Research16], and another notable university is Carleton University.17 It just so happens that the author of Canada Blew It, Michael Hart, works at Carleton.

The process towards a North American Union is embedded in our societal institutions, from the corporate world, to media, government and education. These are individuals connected through joint membership in think tanks and interest groups of those who share ideological beliefs in internationalism and globalization. So, too, must those who oppose the SPP and the NAU be embedded in all the institutions of our societies, working not for personal gain and profit, but for country and freedom, preserving our rights, liberties and identity, and exposing those who seek to challenge our inherent human rights.

Notes

1 Michael Hart, Canada Blew It. The Financial Post: February 12, 2008:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=302151

2 Ibid.

3 Office of the Press Secretary, U.S. – Canada Smart Border/30 Point Action Plan Update. The White House: December 6, 2002:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021206-1.html

4 Michael Hart, Ibid.

5 About NPSIA, Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy. Carleton University:
http://www.carleton.ca/npsia/school/simon_reisman.html

6 Ibid.

7 CTV.ca news staff, Poll says most North Americans support free trade. CTV News: September 30, 2007:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/
20070930/free_trade_070930/20070930?hub=Canada

8 About NPSIA, Simon Reisman Chair in Trade Policy. Carleton University:
http://www.carleton.ca/npsia/school/simon_reisman.html

9 Events at the Center, Free Trade in Free Fall? Assessing the Impact of Nontariff Barriers on Canada-U.S. Trade. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: February 8, 2008:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.event&event_id=372221

10 Past Senior Fellows, Michael Hart. Center for North American Studies at American University:
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/ed/fellows/hart.cfm

11 Center for North American Studies, Robert A. Pastor. Center for North American Studies at American University:
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/staff/rpastor.cfm

12 CFR.org, Building a North American Community. Council on Foreign Relations Press: May 2005: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

13 NAFI, Our Board of Directors. NAFINA: http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/fina/conseil.asp?langue=eng&menu=fina

14 NAFI, The North American Forum on Integration.
http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/finapresentation.asp?langue=eng&menu=fina

15 Ibid.

16 Andrew G. Marshall, North American Monetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero. Global Research: January 20, 2008:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7854

17
NAFI, Triumvirate 2006.
http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/triumvirat06/default.asplangue=eng&menu=triumvirat06

see

NAU North America Union

North-American Montetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero by Andrew G. Marshall

Marshall-Andrew G.

North-American Montetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero by Andrew G. Marshall

by Andrew G. Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
January 20, 2008

Many have now heard rumblings of the “amero”, a proposed North American currency to replace the Canadian loonie, dollar and peso. However, most of the mentions of this concept, when discussed in the mainstream media tend to focus on suggesting that talk of an “amero”, and in effect, the accompanying North American Union, is nothing but a conspiracy theory created by deluded xenophobes afraid of immigration and globalization. The Boston Globe recently wrote such a story, titled, “The Amero Conspiracy”, which stated, “The SPP [Security and Prosperity Partnership] does exist, and its tri-national task forces continue to meet, but its members consider it a way for the United States, Canada, and Mexico to collaborate on issues such as customs, environmental and safety regulations, narcotics smuggling, and terrorism. The amero, on the other hand, appears to be purely theoretical.”1

However, despite being conveyed as “purely theoretical”, a recent article in the national Canadian newspaper, the Financial Post, referred to the amero, not as a theoretical idea or conspiracy theory, but as a potential reality. The article entitled, Fix the Loonie, lays out the process to be undertaken before the adoption of a continental currency known as the Amero.

The article was written as a response to a previous article written in defense of Canada’s flexible exchange rate system, to which it states, “David Laidler’s recent defence of Canada’s flexible exchange rate system misses completely the point made by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Mundell in his famous article on optimum currency areas. Mundell’s article has been widely credited with providing the intellectual base for the European Monetary Union and merits attention.”2 The article continued elaborating on the previous point made by Mundell, stating, “If flexible exchange rates are best for Canada on the grounds presented by Laidler, why would flexible rates not be best also for Alberta, Ontario or New Brunswick?” It continued, “Milton Friedman’s response to Mundell was that he would not advocate flexible rates for every possible region.”

The article contends that Canada is currently suffering from what the author refers to as the ‘Dutch Disease’, “which is named after the problems that developed in the 1960s when the Netherlands sold natural gas that had been discovered on its coast. The increases in Dutch exports of resources, like those of Canada in recent years, resulted in a strong appreciation of exchange rates, which was reinforced by interest rate policies of central banks and currency speculators.” It further states that, “The disease manifests itself through the loss of domestic manufacturers’ ability to compete abroad and with imports.” The author then contends that, “The disease manifests itself through the loss of domestic manufacturers’ ability to compete abroad and with imports,” and that, “The Bank of Canada can keep interest rates low to discourage capital inflows and thus exchange rate increases, but at the cost of fuelling inflationary pressures.”

The author then states that there is only one true cure for Canada’s ‘Dutch Disease’, “inoculation of the system by fixing the exchange rate at a level that allows manufacturers to be competitive, perhaps at the rate the Bank of Canada research identifies as the long-run equilibrium, around US90¢.” The author goes on to explain the reasoning behind this by giving the example that, “The Netherlands and Austria in the years before the introduction of the euro successfully operated such a system and enjoyed near perfectly stable exchange rates against the German currency. The essential ingredient in this success was the official commitment of the central banks of these two countries to maintain the same interest rate as that of the German central bank.”

So if Canada were to do the same in relation to the US dollar, then Canadian interest rates would be subject to the rates set by the US Federal Reserve, with our Bank of Canada lock in step. The author goes on to say, “An analogous commitment by the Bank of Canada with respect to U.S. interest rates may not be credible, tested by speculators and therefore ultimately doomed to failure.” Then the article continues, and makes a startling announcement:

“However, there is a solution to this lack of credibility. In Europe, it came through the creation of the euro and formal end of the ability of national central banks to set interest rates. The analogous creation of the amero is not possible without the unlikely co-operation of the United States.

This leaves the credibility issue to be solved by the unilateral adoption of a currency board, which would ensure that international payments imbalances automatically lead to changes in Canada’s money supply and interest rates until the imbalances are ended, all without any actions by the Bank of Canada or influence by politicians.

It would be desirable to create simultaneously the currency board and a New Canadian Dollar valued at par with the U.S. dollar. With longer-run competitiveness assured at US90¢ to the U.S. dollar. [Emphasis added].”

In summation, what the author is proposing is to fix the Canadian loonie to the US dollar at US$0.90, create a currency board, which would be an unelected, unaccountable, group of people to handle our monetary policy, creating a route around using the publicly owned Bank of Canada, to ensure the creation of a ‘New Canadian Dollar’, which would be a prelude to the Amero. The author then explains that, “Fluctuations in global demand for natural resources will always result in competition for labour and capital among Canadian manufacturers and producers of resources. But, at least, the firms in these sectors would no longer have to concern themselves with exchange-rate fluctuations and policies of the Bank of Canada.” The article finishes by stating, “There will also always be changes in the U.S. (and Canadian) dollar exchange rate against the euro and other major currencies. But these changes would have minor effects on the Canadian economy because 80% of the country’s trade is with the United States.”

The author of this article is Herbert Grubel, a professor of economics emeritus at Simon Fraser University, who also happens to be a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, one of Canada’s largest and most prominent pro-big business think tanks.3 Other senior fellows at the Fraser Institute include Eugene Beaulieu, who sits on the Academic Advisory Council to the Deputy Minister of International Trade in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for the Government of Canada, Martin Collacott, former Canadian Ambassador, Tom Flanagan, ho is known as the “man behind Stephen Harper”, and is a member of what is known as the ‘Calgary School’, which is an unofficial group of like minded thinkers who espouse neo-conservative views, and hold significant influence in the current Conservative government, even referring to Flanagan as the “Godfather of Canada’s conservative movement.”4

Flanagan also used to work for Preston Manning, who is also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute, a former Member of Parliament, and former leader of the opposition, and other senior fellows include Gordon Gibson, a former Assistant to the Minister of Northern Affairs and later Special Assistant to the Prime Minister, Wilf Gobert, former Director and Vice Chairman of Peters & Co. Limited, “an independent, fully integrated investment firm which has specialized for 35 years in investments in the Canadian oil, natural gas, and oilfield services industries,” Michael Harris, former Conservative Premier of Ontario, Jerry Jordan, former President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Ralph Klein, former Premier of Alberta, Rainer Knopff, a professor and also a member of the ‘Calgary School’, and Brian Tobin, a former Industry Minister.5

The author of the Financial Post article which mentioned the amero, Herbert Grubel, wrote a paper for the Fraser Institute in 1999, entitled, “The Case for the Amero: The Economic and Politics of a North American Monetary Union”, in which he laid out the case for the creation of a regional currency for North America.6 In this paper, Grubel wrote that, “The plan for a North American Monetary Union presented in this study is designed to include Canada, the United States, and Mexcio,” and that, “The North American Central Bank, like the European Central Bank, will have a constitution making it responsible only for the maintenance of price stability and not for full employment.”7

In discussing the issue of sovereignty related to a monetary union, Grubel stated that he thinks that, “sovereignty is not infinitely valuable. The merit of giving up some aspects of sovereignty should be determined by the gains brought by such a sacrifice.”8 He continued in saying, “It is important to note that in practice Canada has given up its economic sovereignty in many areas, the most important of which involve the World Trade Organization (formerly the GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement,” as well as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.9 Despite admitting to several agreements and organizations of which strip Canadian sovereignty, Grubel suggests that losing sovereignty in these areas is still worth the benefits.

The introduction of the Amero is an integral aspect of the process of creating a North American Union, much like the European Union. This process is being undertaken through the implementation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), which was signed by the leaders of the three North American governments in March of 2005. This agreement is orchestrating the bureaucratic “harmonization” among the three North American nations to pave the way for a North American Community, akin to the previous European Community, and ultimately, a North American Union.

The push for this agenda is being driven by the US-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the preeminent American think tank, and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, as well as the Mexican equivalent, Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales. In May of 2005, the three groups, as a result of their joining forces in a Task Force, released a report entitled, “Building a North American Community,” in which they state that, “The Task Force offers a detailed and ambitious set of proposals that build on the recommendations adopted by the three governments at the Texas summit of March 2005. The Task Force’s central recommendation is 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.”10

Thomas P. D’Aquino was the Canadian Co-Chair of the Task Force report and is also the President and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, other Canadian members of the Task Force report include Allan Gotleib, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Pierre Marc Johnson, former Premier of Quebec, John Manley, former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, and after 9/11, negotiated the Smart Border Agreement with the US Secretary for Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and Wendy Dobson, former President of the C.D. Howe Institute, another one of Canada’s most prominent think tanks, and former Associate Deputy Minister of Finance in the Government of Canada.11

The C.D. Howe Institute has on its board of directors, individuals from Imperial Oil Canada, a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil, General Electric Canada, BMO Financial Group, TD Bank Financial Group, Nortel Networks, Manulife Financial, Bank of Nova Scotia, Enbridge Gas Distribution, EnCana Corporation, Ford Motor Company of Canada, HSBC Bank of Canada, Astral Media, Merrill Lynch Canada, CIBC World Markets, and N M Rothschild and Sons Canada.12

In 1999, the C.D. Howe Institute published a report entitled, From Fixing to Monetary Union: Options for North American Currency Integration.13 In the paper, it is argued that, “The easiest way to broach the notion of a NAMU [North American Monetary Union] is to view it as the North American equivalent of the European Monetary Union (EMU) and, by extension, the euro.”14 It continued in discussing the issue of sovereignty, stating, “That a NAMU would mean the end of sovereignty in Canadian monetary policy is clear. Most obviously, it would mean abandoning a made-in-Canada inflation rate for a US or NAMU inflation rate.”15

The concept of a North American currency has not only been the object of discussion within powerful big-business think tanks, but has, in fact, been discussed in government positions. In May of 2007, Canada’s then-Governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that, “North America could one day embrace a euro-style single currency,” the Globe and Mail reported. Further, the article stated that, “Some proponents have dubbed the single North American currency the ‘amero’,” and further, “Answering questions from the audience after a speech in Chicago, Mr. Dodge said a single currency was ‘possible’.”16

In November of 2007, the Globe and Mail reported that, “Canada should replace its dollar with a North American currency, or peg it to the U.S. greenback, to avoid the exchange rate shifts the loonie has experienced, renowned money manager Stephen Jarislowsky told a parliamentary committee yesterday,” and quoted Jarislowsky as saying, “I think we have to really seriously start thinking of the model of a continental currency just like Europe.”17 The article continued, “Mr. Jarislowsky, a former Canfor Corp. director, said the loonie’s rise to above par with the U.S. dollar is destroying manufacturing and could devastate the forest sector,” and that, “Mr. Jarislowsky said Canada could either aim for a common North American currency or peg the loonie to the U.S. greenback at about 80 cents (U.S.), allowing it to float within a small band.” Jarislowsky, a billionaire often considered to be Canada’s Warren Buffet, is a member of several corporate boards, and is also a member of the board of directors of the C.D. Howe Institute.18

Appearing on Larry King Live recently, former Mexican President and initial signatory to the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Vicente Fox, when asked a question about whether or not it was possible to see a common currency for Latin America, responded by stating, “Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it’s ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea,” to which Larry King interjected, “It’s going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?” and Fox responded, “Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.”19

So clearly, there is a move on toward a regional currency for North America, in conjunction with the formation of a North American Union. Monetary sovereignty, and especially the power to create and issue money, is perhaps more central to the idea of a free, democratic and sovereign nation than the right to vote. If we do not have the power over the issuance of money, it does not matter whom we vote for. It’s the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules. We, as Canadians, and other peoples of their respective nations should never relinquish this sovereignty over to regional boards, private banks, or other unaccountable individuals. It is our right, not a privilege, and giving up such a right is akin to giving up the right to vote; it is anathema to democracy and a free society.

1 Drake Bennett, The Amero Conspiracy. The Boston Globe: November 25, 2007:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2007/11/25/

the_ameroconspiracy/?page=4

2 Herbert Grubel, Fix the Loonie. The Financial Post: January 18, 2008:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=245165

3 Fraser Institute, Senior Fellows. Found at:  http://www.fraserinstitute.org/aboutus/whoweare/staff/seniorfellows.htm

4 Marci McDonald, The Man Behind Stephen Harper. Walrus Magazine: October, 2004:

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/

the-man-behind-stephen-harper-tom-flanagan/

5 Fraser Institute, Senior Fellows. Found at:  http://www.fraserinstitute.org/aboutus/whoweare/staff/seniorfellows.htm

6 Herbert Grubel, The Case for the Amero. The Fraser Institute: September 1, 1999:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/publication_details.aspx

?pubID=2512

7 Herbert Grubel, The Case for the Amero. The Fraser Institute: September 1, 1999,

Page 4:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/

publication_details.aspx?pubID=2512

8 Grubel, Ibid, Page 17

9 Grubel, Ibid, Page 17

10 Council on Foreign Relations, Building a North American Community. Independent  Task Force on the Future of North America: May, 2005, Page vii:  http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

11 Council on Foreign Relations, Building a North American Community. Independent  Task Force on the Future of North America: May, 2005, Pages 42-48.  http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

12 C.D. Howe Institute, Board of Directors. Found at:  http://www.cdhowe.org/display.cfm?page=board

13 Thomas Courchene and Richard Harris, From Fixing to Monetary Union: Options for  North American Currency Integration. C.D. Howe Institute, June 1999:

http://www.cdhowe.org/display.cfm?page=research-fiscal&year=1999

14 Thomas Courchene and Richard Harris, From Fixing to Monetary Union: Options for  North American Currency Integration. C.D. Howe Institute, June 1999, Page 22:

http://www.cdhowe.org/display.cfm?page=research-fiscal&year=1999

15 Thomas Courchene and Richard Harris, From Fixing to Monetary Union: Options for  North American Currency Integration. C.D. Howe Institute, June 1999, Page 23:

http://www.cdhowe.org/display.cfm?page=research-fiscal&year=1999

16 Barrie McKenna, Dodge Says Single Currency ‘Possible’. The Globe and Mail: May  21, 2007

17 Consider a Continental Currency, Jarislowsky Says. The Globe and Mail: November  23, 2007:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071123.

RDOLLAR23/TPStory/?query=%22Steven%2BChase%22b

18 C.D. Howe Institute, Board of Directors. Found at:  http://www.cdhowe.org/display.cfm?page=board

19 CNN, CNN Larry King Live. Transcripts: October 8, 2007:  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/08/lkl.01.html

see

NAU North America Union

North American Union (NAU)

Marshall-Andrew G.

7-year plan aligns U.S. with Europe’s economy By Jerome R. Corsi

Dandelion Salad

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com
January 16, 2008

Rules, regs to be integrated without congressional review

Six U.S. senators and 49 House members are advisers for a group working toward a Transatlantic Common Market between the U.S. and the European Union by 2015.

The Transatlantic Policy Network – a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels – is advised by the bi-partisan congressional TPN policy group, chaired by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

The plan – currently being implemented by the Bush administration with the formation of the Transatlantic Economic Council in April 2007 – appears to be following a plan written in 1939 by a world-government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

An economist from the World Bank has argued in print that the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market is designed to follow the blueprint of Jean Monnet, a key intellectual architect of the European Union, recognizing that economic integration must inevitably lead to political integration.

As WND previously reported, a key step in advancing this goal was the creation of the Transatlantic Economic Council by the U.S. and the EU through an agreement signed by President Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the current president of the European Council – and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso at a White House summit meeting last April. Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal “Freedom and Union,” Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN advisory group, affirmed the target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

continued…

h/t: Mariah

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Exclusive: Blair takes on money spin by Trevor Murphy

by Trevor Murphy
Guest Writer
Dandelion Salad
Jan. 10, 2008

Tony Blair has announced today that he will take a part time advisers job on Wall Street with JP Morgan to provide political and strategic advice and take part in client events (AKA insider trading).

Continue reading

The Bilderberg Group: Rulers of the World

Dandelion Salad

Audio unavailable.

ICH
Jan. 7, 2008

“The war is not against Bin Laden. We are the enemy”

Interview with investigator and author, Daniel Estulin, on his book, “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group”, which describes an annual gathering where the European and American political elite, and the wealthiest CEOs of the world, all come together to discuss the economic and political future of humanity. Highly secretive, the press has never been allowed to attend, nor have statements ever been released on the group’s conclusions or discussions. Also discussed are the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

Continue reading

Fact-Checking Dobbs: CNN Anchor Lou Dobbs Challenged on Immigration Issues (link)

Dandelion Salad

Democracy Now!
Dec. 4, 2007

In a wide-ranging interview, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs joins Democracy Now! for the hour to discuss:

  • His claim that a “third of our prison population” are illegal aliens (according to the Justice Department about 6 percent of the state and federal prison population are non-citizens)
  • Why white supremacists have appeared on Lou Dobbs Tonight without disclosure over their ties to hate groups

All of Ron Paul’s replies at YouTube Debate (video)

Dandelion Salad

http://www.ronpaul2008.com
http://www.voteronpaul.com
http://www.ronpaulblimp.com
http://www.rudysreadinglist.com
http://youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008do…

Here are ALL of Ron Paul’s replies @ the Nov. 28th CNN/YouTube Republican debate.

http://researchris.blogspot.com

see

YouTube Rep Debate (videos) + Who Won the Debate Poll?

Debate: Ron Paul & John McCain Get Into It On The War (video)

After the Rep Debate: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell + Ron Paul VP Question (videos)

Jose Vargas on C-SPAN: Ron Paul (video)