It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mappam
Nobody talked about "The Highway" yet?
What is new info on this Project? Anything to add about the Joining of the Nations via interstate?
Loved the maps! I enjoy looking at "projections" or predictions that other folks make.
Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by WraithXV
The collapse of the US dollar after we default in July would probably work far better.
It would come in phases though that many on ATS will be too oblivious to notice.
Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I've heard about the North American Union for quite some time now. Funny how Countries are following the corporate model of consolidation. In the USA there is no way to please everyone, because of it's too large and by default, power must become more and more centralized (with government getting larger in the process). A state like North Dakota is almost like a different country entirely when compared to lets say New York. How will it go when we "expand" our borders with two other countries which in terms of size occupy 2 slots in the top 10 countries by land mass? Originally the founders viewed the republic as that a republic of states held together by a weak federal government. States had rights to their own laws (much do now, but the fight over legalized MJ is a good example who really holds power), and in essence held power over their own destiny. This isn't going to be like the EU, in that those countries have well established cultural identities, and for the most part strict soverenty(sp?). Something tells me if this NAU comes into being that the results will be much different.edit on 4-5-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 000268
STATE FOR WHA/CAN - BREESE AND HOLST
WHITE HOUSE/NSC - SHIRZAD
STATE PASS USTR FOR CHANDLER
USDOC FOR 4320/OFFICE OF NAFTA/GWORD/TFOX;
TREASURY FOR IMI
GENEVA FOR USTR
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD EINV CA
SUBJECT: PLACING A NEW NORTH AMERICAN INITIATIVE
IN ITS ECONOMIC POLICY CONTEXT
REF: (A) 04 Ottawa 3431 (Regulatory agenda)
(B) 04 Ottawa 066 (Canadian trade policy)
¶1. THIS MESSAGE IS SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED. NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION OUTSIDE USG CHANNELS.
¶2. (SBU) An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks
for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain
the most support among Canadian policymakers. Our research
leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both
"security" and "prosperity" goals. This fits the
recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the
options for continental integration. While in principle
many of them support more ambitious integration goals, like
a customs union/single market and/or single currency, most
believe the incremental approach is most appropriate at this
time, and all agree that it helps pave the way to these
goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them.
¶3. (SBU) The economic payoff of the prospective North
American initiative - in terms of higher incomes and greater
competitiveness - is available, but its size and timing are
unpredictable, so it should not be oversold. Still, a
respectable economic case has been made for such an
initiative, and this message spells it out. We believe
that, given growing Canadian concern about "border risk" and
its effects on investment, a focus on the "security" side
could also produce the most substantial economic/trade
CANADIAN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
¶4. (SBU) Canadian economists in business, academia and
government have given extensive thought to the possible
options for further North American integration. Nearly all
of this work assumes that each of the three countries is
pursuing standard economic policy goals - growth,
productivity and competitiveness (rather than more specific
concerns raised by Mexican analysts such as migration
management, regional development, or environmental
protection). Since 9/11, Canadian economists working in
this area have generally endorsed a comprehensive initiative
with the United States on security, trade, and immigration.
Following is our summary of the professional consensus:
PROCESS: At this time, an "incremental" approach to
integration is probably better than a "big deal"
approach. However, governments should focus on
choosing their objectives, and not on choosing a
BORDER VS. PERIMETER: Even with zero tariffs, our land
borders have strong commercial effects. Some of these
effects are positive (such as law enforcement and data
gathering), so our governments may always want to keep
some kind of land border in place. Canada and the
United States already share a security perimeter to
some degree; it is just a question of how strong we
want to make it.
BORDER RISK: The risk that business will be obstructed
at the border by discretionary U.S. actions, such as
measures to defend against terrorism or infectious
disease, in addition to growing congestion, have become
major risks to the economy, inhibiting investment in
Canada. For small businesses, the complexities of
navigating the border are apparently even more
intimidating than the actual costs. Reducing this risk
is Canada's top motive for pursuing further
LABOR MARKETS: Many Canadian economists point to labor
markets - both within and among countries - as the
factor market where more liberalization would deliver
the greatest economic benefits for all three countries.
They advocate freeing up professional licensing laws,
and developing a quick, simple, low-cost work permit
system, at least for U.S. and Canadian citizens.
REGULATION: Canadian economists agree that Canadian
regulations (if not their standards, then their
complexity) are needlessly restricting foreign
investment and impeding food, communications and other
industries. (Inter-provincial differences are
important here, since Canada's federal government does
not have the benefit of a U.S.-style "interstate
commerce" clause). While much of the problem is
domestic in nature, an international initiative could
help to catalyze change.
CUSTOMS UNION: A common external tariff, or a customs
union which eliminated NAFTA's rules of origin (ROO),
is economically desirable. NAFTA's ROO are so
restrictive that importers often prefer to pay the
tariff rather than try to prove North American origin.
However, economists differ on the size of the benefits
available and on whether these would justify the effort
of negotiation. One study estimated that a full
customs union which eliminated ROO would only raise
national income by about one percent.
CURRENCY UNION: Canadian economists are split on
whether a return to a fixed exchange rate, or adopting
the U.S. dollar, would benefit Canada in current
circumstances. (Canada last tied its dollar to the
U.S. dollar from 1962 to 1970). The central bank
governor has taken the position that "monetary union is
an issue that should be considered once we have made
more progress towards establishing a single market."
NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION: WHAT WE KNOW
¶5. (SBU) Past integration (not just NAFTA but also many
bilateral and unilateral steps) has increased trade,
economic growth, and productivity. Studies suggest
that border efficiency and transportation improvements
(such as the lower cost and increased use of air
freight) have been a huge part of this picture.
Indeed, they may have been more important to our
growing prosperity over the past decade than NAFTA's
tariff reductions. Freight and passenger aviation are
critically important to our continent's
competitiveness, and businesses are very sensitive to
the timing, security, and reliability of deliveries -
hence the "border risk" which so concerns Canadian
¶6. (SBU) A stronger continental "security perimeter"
can strengthen economic performance, mainly by
improving efficiency at land borders and airports. It
could also facilitate future steps toward trilateral
economic integration, such as a common external tariff
or a customs union, if and when our three countries
chose to pursue them. Paradoxically, the security and
law enforcement aspects of the envisioned initiative
could hold as much - or more - potential for broad
economic benefits than the economic dimension.
WHERE'S THE UPSIDE?
¶7. (SBU) Some international economic initiatives (such
as FTAs) produce across-the-board measures that
generate broad benefits for a country's industries and
consumers on a known time-line. This was true of NAFTA
but it is less likely to be true of the economic
aspects of the NAI. Non-tariff barriers such as
standards and regulations generally must be tackled one-
by-one. This is a piecemeal process and the ratio of
payoff to effort is likely to be lower than with across-
the-board measures. Governments naturally focus on
resolving the problems which their firms or citizens
bring to their attention. While this approach has
merits, it tends to deliver the payoffs toward
particular interests. If there are hidden costs, there
might be little impact on national performance. As we
move toward a list of barriers to tackle, it will
remain important to balance those interests. For
example, some Canadian economists have suggested that
NAFTA fell short of expectations with respect to
increasing consumer choice in Canada; that may be a
theme we should stress as efforts to promote further
integration take shape.
¶8. (SBU) In contrast, cooperative measures on the
"security" side, a critical focus of current bilateral
efforts, can deliver substantial, early, and
widespread economic benefits. Security and law
enforcement within North America have evolved rapidly
since 9/11, leading to many less-than-perfect processes
for handling legitimate international traffic.
Collaboration to improve these processes could yield
efficiency improvements which would automatically be
spread widely across the economy, leading to general
gains in trade, productivity, and incomes.
A NOTE OF CAUTION
¶9. (SBU) There is little basis on which to estimate the
size of the "upside" gains from an integration
initiative concentrating on non-tariff barriers of the
kind contained in NAI. For this reason, we cannot make
claims about how large the benefits might be on a
national or continental scale. When advocating NAI, it
would be better to highlight specific gains to
individual firms, industries or travelers, and
Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.
When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.
Does America have a hidden oligarchy? Is U.S. foreign policy run by a closed shop? What is the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)? It began in 1921 as a front organization for J.P. Morgan and Company. By World War II it had acquired unrivaled influence on American foreign policy. Hundreds of U.S. government administrators and diplomats have been drawn from its ranks - regardless of which party has occupied the White House. But what does the Council on Foreign Relations stand for? Why do the major media avoid discussing it? What has been its impact on America's past - and what is it planning for the future? (2008, 272pp, pb)
Last month, a secret meeting called the North American Forum was held in Banff. The theme of the three-day event was "Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment." Dozens of powerful figures from across North America attended. Many of the delegates are rumoured to have arrived at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel by bus in the middle of the night.
Stockwell Day may have been there, but his office isn't saying. Donald Rumsfeld may have been there, too. But again, no one seems to want to talk about it.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by RUSSO
I was commenting on what is actually in the document your thread is based on, which is just a discussion of the possibilities.
I'm curious, how would an open border with Canada be a bad thing for trade, commerce or socially?
If you read that document without the prejudice, you will see nothing there to support anything other than that. In this case, WikiLeaks released a meaningless document with nothing sinister inside. Yes they kept it on the down low to avoid irritating the Protectionist crowd who by the way caused the Great Depression. Protectionism is the bigotry I mentioned and it's a cousin of all other forms of bigotry based on hate and fear.
Seems to me to be a logical and productive topic for them to be discussing. In Canada or the US it would be discussed openly years before it was acted on. You won't wake up one day to a NAU.
Like I said, read it.
What is it that is discussed in that document you object so strongly too and why?
Merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico
Integration is a little-used term employed mainly by policy wonks. But while it may sound relatively harmless, it generally describes a very serious phenomenon when used in a geopolitical context — the gradual merging of separate countries under a regional authority.
Similar processes are already well underway in Europe, Africa, and South America. And according to critics, the results — essentially abolishing national sovereignty in favor of supranational, unaccountable governance — have been an unmitigated disaster. But the U.S. government doesn’t think so.
In North America, integration has been proceeding rapidly for years. The New American magazine was among the first to report on the efforts to erect what critics have called a “North American Union,” encompassing Canada, the United States, and Mexico. But more recently, the topic has received more attention.
After the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — similar in many ways to the European Common Market that preceded the political union in Europe — the integration scheme has only accelerated. And the bipartisan efforts have been going on for years.
Under President George W. Bush, integration occurred through the little-known “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” And with the Obama administration, the process, now virtually out in the open, is only accelerating.
Back in 2005, the cable released recently by WikiLeaks explained how it would be done. And looking back, the document was right on the mark.
The biggest loser this election night is not Michael Ignatieff or his Liberal party. It is the Canadian electorate. As British Columbians should know rather well, the biggest determinant in the outcome of many Canadian elections is which side of the political spectrum splits its vote. In all but one of the last six elections, the Conservative or Reform/Conservative vote has fallen within two points of 38 per cent. The only true majority tonight is the 60 per cent of Canadians who didn't get a government they supported at the ballot box
Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by RUSSO
Nafta and regionalism were openly discussed by people for years, it wasn't hidden. I happen to be against the North American Union; but, it was openly discussed. Bush used the term "New World Order" and so did others, people talked about it and we were called conspiracy nuts. The only differance between now and then is that others are finally listening. It was people's indifferance that allowed this to go as far as it did.