Thread: The SPP: Three's Company or Three's a Crowd?

The SPP: Three's Company or Three's a Crowd?

By Dana Gabriel

In the last year, there has been little mention of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) from the governments of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. A battle appears to be brewing as to the next course of action to take in regards to North American integration. Some would like to see more focus placed on Canada-U.S. bilateralism while others believe that trilateralism should always be the way to go. This could be a manufactured debate with the goal of trying to resurrect this agenda. You can be sure that the global elite pushing for deeper continental integration, will take a North American Union any which way they can.

It seems to always be the same people championing for further North American integration, but with the decline of the SPP, a rift may be emerging. Recent op-eds that appeared in the Globe and Mail back this up. On one side, you have former deputy foreign minister of Mexico Andrés Rozental and Robert Pastor, who is considered by many to be the architect of a proposed North American Community. They argued in favor of trilateralism. The bilateral side was represented by former Canadian deputy prime minister John Manley and Gordon Giffin, former US ambassador to Canada. They believe that the trilateral framework of NAFTA should not apply to all aspects of North American relations. It’s hard to take this apparent quarrel too seriously as all have participated in past reports and policy paper initiatives pushing for expanded North American integration. It could be a legitimate power struggle and infighting, brought about by a clash of ideas on how to best achieve these objectives. It might also be nothing more than staged theatrics designed to try and jumpstart continental integration, in an effort to fill the void left by the SPP.

read rest of article @
http://www.borderfirereport.net/dana-ga ... -crowd.php

The SPP: Three's Company or Three's a Crowd?

Thursday, 14 May 2009 04:54

By Dana Gabriel
In the last year, there has been little mention of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) from the governments of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. A battle appears to be brewing as to the next course of action to take in regards to North American integration. Some would like to see more focus placed on Canada-U.S. bilateralism while others believe that trilateralism should always be the way to go. This could be a manufactured debate with the goal of trying to resurrect this agenda. You can be sure that the global elite pushing for deeper continental integration, will take a North American Union any which way they can.

It seems to always be the same people championing for further North American integration, but with the decline of the SPP, a rift may be emerging. Recent op-eds that appeared in the Globe and Mail back this up. On one side, you have former deputy foreign minister of Mexico Andrés Rozental and Robert Pastor, who is considered by many to be the architect of a proposed North American Community. They argued in favor of trilateralism. The bilateral side was represented by former Canadian deputy prime minister John Manley and Gordon Giffin, former US ambassador to Canada. They believe that the trilateral framework of NAFTA should not apply to all aspects of North American relations. It’s hard to take this apparent quarrel too seriously as all have participated in past reports and policy paper initiatives pushing for expanded North American integration. It could be a legitimate power struggle and infighting, brought about by a clash of ideas on how to best achieve these objectives. It might also be nothing more than staged theatrics designed to try and jumpstart continental integration, in an effort to fill the void left by the SPP.

In an article from February of 2009, former international trade and foreign affairs minister David Emerson, appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. He feels that NAFTA has made Canada “U.S.-centricâ€

Canada-U.S. bilateralism, but cautioned against cutting Mexico out of the equation

Why? All we end up inherting is a massive and expensive problem, while Mexico continues status quo and a "racial" tie to the corruption to South America and hispanic culture as well. Seems there's way to much work to be done in Mexico to come up to pace to even come close to a union. When you look at who's funding alot of the illegal immigration marches, it's socialism and communism and alot from South America. They have never gotton beyond race problems, cultural things that are not common in the US or Canada, on down the line. It would be like going through the last 150 years all over again, just to bring them up to speed.