9/11: The “Perfect Opportunity” for North American Integration
by Andrew G. Marshall
Global Research, February 14, 2008
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
--
Andrew G. Marshall is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global
Research Articles by Andrew G. Marshall
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8082
