North American Union Debate: Why Are Conservative Leaders So Silent? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
By <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Kerby Anderson
 
 
            Start a conversation with someone about the North American Union, and you will have a classic example of the dismal state of debate and discussion in this country. I guess it all started back on March 23, 2005 when President George Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin announced the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. When the press first reported it, few thought much about it. But as a number of people began to read the details of the agreement, they began to raise concerns.
 
            The reactions to all of this have been interesting. At one extreme we have people who are convinced that this partnership is tantamount to the end to the United States as we know it. We will lose our sovereignty and merge into a North American Union. One caller even suggested that since so many of our troops were over in Afghanistan and Iraq that Mexico was ready to use its troops to take over the United States!
 
            At the extreme are those who are convinced that this is just one more conspiracy theory put forth by right wing nut jobs. So they pour ridicule and contempt on anyone who speaks or writes about the North American Union.
 
            In the middle are those who say they know nothing about it. At first when I heard members of Congress and policy experts say that, I assumed they probably weren't aware of the debate. But two years later, I fear that most of them simply don't want to talk about the issue. I have even had some of our favorite conservative guests say on air that they need to study the issue more before they can comment on it.
 
            And that may be my greatest concern: that so many people don't even want to talk about this issue. It is amazing that not only do mainstream media avoid this topic, but most of the prominent national talk show hosts won't talk about it either. Occasionally a caller will slip past the call screener (who must have strict instructions not to allow discussion of this issue) but this is rare.
 
It is almost as if there has been a memo sent to all the media outlets telling them to avoid the topic. I guess I didn't get the memo. I have talked about it and have provided a forum for guests of different perspectives to address the issue.
 
First, let's establish some facts. Yes, there is a Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) that has created a new administrative infrastructure. You can go to a website created by the Department of Commerce at: www.spp.gov. You will find that the SPP has created nearly two dozen working groups to address issues ranging from e-commerce to borders and immigration.
 
There are also plans for a highway from Mexico through the United States. It is called the Trans-Texas Corridor. You can read about it at a Texas Department of Transportation website: www.keeptexasmoving.com. Some have referred to it as the
NAFTA superhighway.
 
There have also been discussions about called "Building a North American Community." You can read about the plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" at the Council on Foreign Relations website: www.cfr.org.
 
Second, let's also agree that many have over-reacted to the news about a Security and Prosperity Partnership. While there are forces that would love to reduce or even eliminate American sovereignty, a large majority of Americans (as well as most members of Congress) want no such thing.
 
Should we address this issue? Yes, but let's do it in a rational way with facts and logic. This is not the end of the world, but neither is it an issue to be avoided. If policies between the three countries of the United States, Mexico, and Canada are being changed (even incrementally), we need to pay attention.
 
I fear that some of the concerns are being whipped up for fund raising reasons. I have sitting on my desk right now, three fund raising letters from three different organizations all asking me to send money RIGHT NOW to help fight the North American Union. They all may be sincere, but they are certainly using the growing fears for fund raising as well.
 
Third, many in government are playing down concerns about a trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership. In August, President George Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met in Quebec. There were protests in Canada and concerns raised by many in America.
 
A Fox reporter asked the three heads of state: "Can you say today that this is not a prelude to a North American Union, similar to a European Union?" It was a reasonable question that none of them answered directly. President Bush said he was "amused" by those who feared a North American Union. Prime Minister Harper said their meeting focused on "common sense things" like jelly bean standardization.
 
Well, excuse me for thinking that perhaps much more was discussed at these meetings that the rules for jelly bean contents in Canada and the United States. Fortunately, groups like Judicial Watch have filed Freedom of Information Act requests to find out what else was discussed. You can read that information at: www.judicialwatch.com. You don't have to take the government's word about what was or wasn't discussed. You can read it for yourself.
 
The latest debate about immigration illustrates how North American Union language ended up in key legislation. Some members of Congress found some interesting things in the immigration bill (H.R. 1645). They pointed out that that the bill called for an "immigration security strategy for North America" and "a common security perimeter" for the United States, Canada, and Mexico. One section of the bill was entitled" "Reports on Improving the Exchange of Information on North American Security." These terms and phrases fit much better within a North American Union than within a sovereign United States.
 
Finally, we should ask for a more rational debate about the issue. Those seeing conspiracy need to cool the hype. And those on the other side of this debate should cut the ridicule. One conservative talk show host writes about "sovereignty saviors" and calls them "loon-dogs" with "feverish fantasies." He also talks about paranoid media demagogues and renames one Internet website as WorldNutDaily. Can't we have a civil debate and discussion about this issue without the name-calling?
 
Perhaps now you can see why so many run away from this issue. Start talking about a North American Union and one side will call you a conspiracy nut. Dismiss discussion about any it and you are labeled naïve or even part of a plot to bring down the United States of America.
 
The SPP is not the end of the world, nor are all concerns merely part of some conspiratorial fantasy. When you look at the transformation of Europe to the present day European Union, you have to be concerned about the incremental changes that occurred there and could also occur here. Can't we have a rational debate about that?