North American Union in the words of Robert Pastor

[Kate]

Some enlightening reading on the North American Union from Robert Pastor of American University, member of the CFR, and "father" of the NAU. This is both delusional and diabolical.

http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/publications.html
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/wo ... elorio.pdf
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/Pa ... er0803.pdf
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/Me ... ptions.pdf
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/SPP_MCelorio.pdf
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/wo ... elorio.pdf


Invited Testimony of Dr. Robert A. Pastor
By Robert A. Pastor
Before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, House of Commons, Canada
February 7, 2002
http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/Pa ... Canada.pdf

One section of this testimony-

Is a North American Community Desirable? Feasible?

Is any of this feasible? Are North Americans prepared to give up their sovereignty? The term “sovereignty” is one of the most widely used, abused, and least understood in the diplomatic lexicon. Within the last two decades, the three countries have so completely redefined the term that one wonders whether any serious policy-maker could use it to defend any position. In 1980, Canada used sovereignty as a defense to prevent foreign investment in its energy resources, and Mexico used it maintain high tariffs and discourage foreign investment. Within a decade, both countries reversed their policies. In 1990, Mexico defended its sovereignty by rejecting international election observers; four years later, it invited them. Sovereignty, in brief, is not the issue.

The question is whether the people of the three countries are ready for a different relationship, and public opinion surveys suggest that the answer is "yes" and, indeed, that the people are way ahead of their leaders. A survey of the attitudes of people in the three countries during the past twenty years demonstrate an extraordinary convergence of values – on personal and family issues as well as public policy. Each nation has very positive feelings about their neighbors. In all three countries, the public's views on NAFTA shifted in the 1990s. There is now modest net support, but a neat consensus: each nation agrees that the others benefited more than they have!

The most interesting surveys, however, show that a majority of the public in all three countries is prepared to join a larger North American country if they thought it would improve their standard of living and environment and not threaten their culture. Mexicans and Canadians do not want to be incorporated into the United States, and they are ambivalent about adopting the American dollar, but they are more willing to become part of a single country of North America and of a unified currency (,
like the “Amero,” proposed by Herbert Grubel. 1 The “Amero” would be equivalent of the American dollar, and the two other currencies would be exchanged at the rate in which they are then traded for the U.S. dollar. In other words, at the outset, the wealth of all three countries would be unchanged, and the power to manage the currency would be roughly proportional to the existing wealth. The three governments’ remain zealous defenders of an aging conception of sovereignty whereas the people seem ready to entertain new approaches.

Canada has played a key leadership role in so many issues. I sincerely hope your government will take the lead in defining the path toward a more collaborative relationship. I cannot say that the United States government will respond positively, but I think Mexico would consider such an approach positively, and if the two neighbors of the United States were to make a persuasive case, influential sectors in the United States would encourage the Administration to take them very seriously.

Four hundred million people live in our three countries, but few, if any, think of themselves as residents of North America. The three governments have devoted so much effort to defining their differences that the people have not seen what they have in common, or that they share a continent, values, and an agreement. I hope that is the conclusion of your deliberations and that, over time, we will begin to think of ourselves proudly as "North Americans."


North America and the Americas: Integration Among Unequal Partners

http://www.american.edu/ia/cnas/pdfs/Pa ... arrell.pdf

From this book section published in 2005-

(4) A North American Identity?
In the 1990 world values survey, about one-fourth of the Canadian and Mexican population were in favour of erasing the border with the United States, and nearly half (46per cent) of Americans favoured eliminating the border with Canada. 31 In 2000, a survey of American attitudes found Americans still evenly divided about doing away with the Mexican border. The Mexicans agree with the Americans on this issue. Fifty-five per cent of Mexicans oppose doing away with the border with the United States, and only 36 per cent favour it. 32

When Mexicans, Canadians, or Americans are asked whether they are prepared to give up their cultural identity in order to form one state or a union, all overwhelmingly reject the proposition. But when the question is asked whether they would be prepared to form a single country if that would mean a higher quality of life for their country, a majority of the people in all three countries answer affirmatively. 33

Forty-three per cent of Canadian think it ‘would be a good thing to be part of a North American Union in ten years,’ and only 27 percent think it would be a bad thing. Moreover, nearly one-half (49 per cent) think North American Union is likely to happen. As with the Mexicans, Canadians are much more willing to contemplate a union in a new North American entity than to be part of the United States. A majority (57 percent) would oppose joining the United States while only 23 percent would consider it.34 When asked whether Canada and the United States should have a common currency, the Canadian public split – 45 per cent in favour, and 44 per cent opposed. 35 This suggests that Canadians are much further along than their leaders in thinking about some of the practical, but sensitive, questions of integration.

For the American public, a relatively higher percentage favour continental political union than is true of Mexicans and Canadians. Support for union soars when the contingency options – e.g., if that would mean a better quality of life, etc. – are included. In 1990, 81 per cent of Americans said they would favour forming one country with Canada if it meant a better quality of life, and 79 per cent agreed if it meant the environment would get better. 36 These numbers declined a bit in 2000 but remained relatively high – 63 per cent approved of forming one country if it would improve the quality of life, and 48 per cent if the environment would get better – but they remained high. 37 When one disaggregates the data, younger and wealthier Americans are readier to contemplate political union than older or poorer citizens. 38

What should one conclude from this data? First, the majority of the people in all three countries are prepared to contemplate a reconfiguration of the North American political system provided they can be convinced that it will produce a higher quality of life and handle problems – like the environment – more effectively than if these are done by each country. Secondly, the principal motive is economic, the approach is pragmatic, and the main drawback is the fear of its effect on culture and identity. To the extent that people perceive their cultures at risk, they resist integration. Third, younger people are more connected and ready to experiment with new political forms and so the prospects for future integration are likely to get better. Fourth, as Karl Deutsch predicted a half century ago, more contact and trust among peoples can facilitate integration, which, in turn, can increase trust. In disaggregating the data on a regional basis, one finds greater support for integration among those regions that have the most commerce – i.e., the southwest of the United States and the northern part of Mexico and on the Canadian border. 39
The underlying basis of a community exists. Provided people are not threatened by a loss of culture or identity, and incentives for productivity and improvements for standard of living are evident, the three peoples of North America are ready to listen to ideas, including political union, on how to accomplish those ends.

[gofer]

The most interesting surveys, however, show that a majority of the public in all three countries is prepared to join a larger North American country if they thought it would improve their standard of living and environment and not threaten their culture.

This is an OUTRIGHT LIE! How can this possibly be true when the vast majority of people don't even know about it. I guess his surveys come from the elites NOT the people! This is outrageous!

[Judy]

It's a survey of elites and illegales. In otherwords, it's an outright lie created and perpetuated by: The Enemy. This man Pastor is a Liar and a Traitor.

I can't believe anyone in the US Government would give him the time of day; I can't believe anyone in Corporate America would give him the time of day; I can't even believe a publisher would give him one cent to circulate this Traitorous Garbage.

Get the Tomatoes, Folks!! The Big Rotten Ones! In fact I think this guy is cruisin' for Tomato-Egg Salad.

Lyin-no-good-low-down-pond-sum Traitor.

SPLATT!! SPLATT!! SPLATT!!

[nittygritty]

I heard some good News on Lou's show friday, a Virgil Goode, Rep. from VA is going to call for a congressional investigation into the matter of the NAU. I think we need to write, call or email our leaders from our states to get behind him on this matter. We can no longer email leaders not from our state (a bummer) we have to go through our own state leaders.

[Judy]

Why can't we email someone who is not out state leader, nitty?

[Kate]

Most of the Reps' web sites are set up to accept mail only from constituents. I guess most of them, especially if they are not in leadership positions, don't want to deal with the additional mail. Some though, like Sensenbrenner, uses a regular e-mail address, as opposed to a web site form, so non-constituents could e-mail his office directly.

[Judy]

Oooh I see, thanks Kate.

nitty, that is great news about Virgil Goode. I'm going to his website and see if we can email him from there. Perhaps he already has enough from the Virginians. I know Virginia won't put up with this crap. 8 US Presidents were born in Virginia i luding Washington, Jefferson and Monroe.

Where did you find that news? Got a link?

[Judy]

http://www.house.gov/goode/contact.shtml

Phone number and fax information for Virgil Goode.

I would call and encourage the Congressional Investigation of the SPP and NAU.

[greyparrot]

BTT

[nittygritty]

I tried to send an Email because I was not from Va said I had to go through my state leaders so I am going to email Coburn and Inhofe Senators from Okla and also Dan Boren Rep. I think we should all call Goode, I plan to do that tomorrow as well as kick these emails out to my own state leaders to get them backing Goode on this we should all scream at our own state leaders all of them that we can also scream at Bush for all the good that does we can all see once he makes up his mind there is no changing it for any reason! Here in Okie we have a name for that it is called PIG HEADEDNESS, probably didnt spell that right but you get the message I am sure!