Sometimes Klein tends to exaggerate and engage in rhetorical extravagance but she is usually perceptive. I like this:
In the Bush era, security doesn't trump big business; it may be the biggest business of all.
The provision of cameras for protestors to send their messages inside is really priceless. No doubt it enables the intelligence services to add to their already bulging database about protesters. It is passing strange while this equipment was provided that the meeting refused to accept the huge petition that the Council of Canadians tried to present. Wouldn't it be helpful for security to add those names to their database of protesters. Shame on them. Missed opportunity.
Democracy's new dawn is on CCTV: the security state as infotainment
So keen are America's leaders to hear dissent they're videotaping the dissenters. Welcome to a world of total surveillance
Naomi Klein
Friday August 24, 2007
The Guardian
As protesters gathered recently outside the Security and Prosperity Partnership summit in Montebello, Quebec, to confront George Bush, Felipe Calderón, the Mexican president, and Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, Associated Press reported this surreal detail: "Leaders were not able to see the protesters in person, but they could watch the protesters on TV monitors inside the hotel ... Cameramen hired to ensure that demonstrators would be able to pass along their messages to the three leaders sat idly in a tent full of audio and video equipment ... A sign on the outside of the tent said, 'Our cameras are here today providing your right to be seen and heard. Please let us help you get your message out. Thank You.'"
Yes, it's true: like contestants on a reality TV show, protesters at the SPP meeting were invited to vent into video cameras, their rants to be beamed to "protest-trons" inside the summit enclave. It was security state as infotainment - Big Brother meets, well, Big Brother. The spokesperson for Prime Minister Harper explained that although protesters were herded into empty fields, the video link meant that their right to political speech was protected. "Under the law, they need to be seen and heard, and they will be."
It is an argument with sweeping implications. If videotaping activists meets the legal requirement that dissenting citizens have the right to be seen and heard, what else might fit the bill? How about all the other security cameras that patrolled the summit - the ones filming demonstrators as they got on and off buses and peacefully walked down the street? What about the mobile phone calls that were intercepted, the meetings that were infiltrated, the emails that were read? According to the new rules set out in Montebello, all these actions may soon be recast not as infringements on civil liberties but the opposite: proof of our leaders' commitment to direct, unmediated consultation. Elections are a crude tool for taking the public temperature - these methods allow constant, exact monitoring of our beliefs. Think of surveillance as the new participatory democracy; of wiretapping as the political equivalent of MTV's Total Request Live.
Protesters in Montebello complained that while they were locked out, chief executives from about 30 of the largest corporations in North America - from Wal-Mart to Chevron - were part of the official summit. But perhaps they had it backwards: the CEOs had only an hour and 15 minutes of face time with the leaders. The activists were being "seen and heard" around the clock. So instead of shouting about police-state tactics, maybe they should have said: "Thank you for listening." (And reading, and watching, and photographing, and data-mining.)
The Montebello "seen and heard" rule also casts the target of the protests in a new light. The SPP is described in the leaders' final statement as an "ambitious" plan to "keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade". In other words, a merger of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the homeland security complex - Nafta with spy planes. The model dates back to September 11, when Paul Cellucci, the US ambassador to Canada, pronounced that in the new era, "security will trump trade". But there was an out clause: the trade on which the economies of Canada and Mexico depend could continue uninterrupted, as long as the governments of those countries were willing to welcome the tentacles of the US war on terror. Canadian and Mexican business leaders leaped to surrender, aggressively pushing their governments to give in to US demands for "integrated" security in order to keep the goods and the tourists flowing.
Almost six years later, the business leaders at Montebello - under the banner of the North American Competitiveness Council, an official wing of the SPP - were still holding up "thickening borders" as the bogeyman. The fix? According to the SPP website, "technological solutions, improved information-sharing, and, potentially, the use of biometric identifiers". From experience we know what this means: continent-wide no-fly lists, integrated databases, as well as the $2.5bn contract to Boeing to build a "virtual fence" on the northern and southern borders of the United States, equipped with unmanned drones.
In short, under the SPP vision of the continent, "thick" borders will soon be replaced with a nearly invisible web of continental surveillance - almost all of it run for profit. Two members of the SPP advisory group - Lockheed Martin and General Electric - have already received multibillion-dollar contracts from the US government to build this web. In the Bush era, security doesn't trump big business; it may be the biggest business of all.
In the run-up to the SPP summit, a spate of surveillance scandals helped paint a fuller picture. First, Congress not only failed to curtail the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping but opened the door to snooping into bank records, phone call patterns and even physical searches - all without any onus to prove the subject is a threat.
Next, the Boston Globe reported on plans to link thousands of CCTV cameras on streets, subways, apartment buildings and businesses into networks capable of tracking suspects in real time. And on August 15 confirmation came that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency - the arm of the American military that runs spy planes and satellites over enemy territory - would be fully integrated into the infrastructure of domestic intelligence gathering and local policing, becoming the "eyes" to the National Security Agency's "ears".
Add a few more hi-tech tools - biometric IDs, facial-recognition software, networked databases of "suspects", GPS bundled into ever more electronic devices - and you have something like the world of total surveillance most recently portrayed in The Bourne Ultimatum.
Which brings us back to the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Who needs clumsy old border checks when the authorities are making sure we are seen and heard at all times - in high definition, online and off, on land and from the sky? Security is the new prosperity. Surveillance is the new democracy.
· Naomi Klein's new book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, is published next month; a version of this article appears in the Nation www.thenation.com
www.naomiklein.org
Showing posts with label SPP meeting in Quebec. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SPP meeting in Quebec. Show all posts
Monday, August 27, 2007
The Politics of Corporate Party Crashing
This is interesting as presenting one of the protest participant's point of view. It also shows some of the inner conflicts within the protest organisation process. Harder in surely premature in thinking that SPP's grave is dug. The protest did nothing to stop the process. There may be some move towards making the process more transparent but it may also just mean that the process will become even less perceptible and the yearly meetings may become just a more open show while everything important goes on behind the scenes as it has been already for the most part.
The politics of corporate party crashing
As activists assess their next steps, many wonder: can we still work together, dig the SPP's grave still deeper, and then push it in? And where do we go from there?
>by Joel Davison Harden
August 27, 2007
The North American global justice movement just exposed the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP), the latest corporate assault on our democracy, environment and human rights.
Big business was forced to admit their elite-led project must emerge from lobbyist backrooms, and face debate in elected legislatures.
Meanwhile, other business voices (like former Liberal Deputy Leader John Manley, and the Canadian American Business Council) criticized the “lack of transparency” in the SPP process itself.
The Editorial Board of the Hill Times (a newspaper read by all federal MPs) ran a lead column demanding the SPP be brought before parliament.
This split was caused by our movement's activism, and is a partial victory in itself.
We rejected their propaganda, and refused their protest zones. We crashed the corporate Bush party in Montebello, and put big business back on the defensive where it belongs.
Even worse for Stephen Harper, that inveterate control-freak, his arrogance may finally come back to bite him.
Did Harper's apparent lack of concern for protests mask a more ominous, underhanded strategy?
Did he (or someone in his office) authorize attempts to discredit protesters through agents provocateurs?
A recent Supreme Court decision explained the Prime Minister's Office is regularly briefed on security measures for meetings when other Heads of State are involved. What might a public inquiry into this week's events dredge up?
Between this, Harper's embrace of oil barons, and his loyalty to the Bush-Cheney “War on Terror,” the conditions are ripe for activists to deliver a knockout blow this fall. The wind is back in the sails of North America's global justice movement, and not a moment too soon.
The SPP: a sign of weakness
As activists took on the SPP, we learned an important lesson, one that hints at our power.
We learned big business and government officials felt compelled to conduct the SPP process in secret, away from the prying eyes of public scrutiny.
While progressive researchers (like Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress) toiled mightily to get SPP documents, government officials largely refused access to key speeches and files.
This secrecy is a sign of weakness. A brief review of recent history demonstrates this is true.
Anyone remember the 1988 federal election that focused on a Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the U.S.? A majority of Canadians voted for parties that opposed the deal. Given the circus mirror produced by Canada's election rules, however, Brian Mulroney's Tories implemented it anyway a year later.
What about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), introduced by Jean Chretien's Liberals in 1993? When standing for election, Chretien claimed he opposed NAFTA. That, of course, didn't stop him from implementing it once his government got elected.
After these two public debacles, “free trade” advocates felt put upon. They quickly shifted to negotiating new trade deals in secret.
This led to the next fiasco in 1997, otherwise known as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).
After Maude Barlow got a leaked version of the text, she exposed the MAI for what it was: a charter of investment rights for multinational corporations, where governments could be sued for lost profits and “sheltered markets.” Mass teach-ins were held to expose the MAI and its serious implications.
Public health care, post-secondary education, and other public services were all described as “sheltered markets,” receiving “unfair subsidies” from government. The MAI proposed an international legal process to pry open these “markets” for corporate gain.
Not surprisingly, when people got wind of this, they pressured their governments to torpedo the MAI. France did so publicly in 1997, and that drove a nail into the MAI's coffin.
The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) that came later would suffer a similar fate. After large protests in Quebec City (2001) and Miami (2003), South American governments took turns snubbing it. By 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez pronounced the FTAA “dead,” and invited the world to debate strategies for “fair trade.”
As the FTAA imploded, North American big business set to work on the SPP. This time, through the mouthpiece of George W. Bush, they had a new spin: “security trumps trade.”
After the events of September 11, 2001, the SPP was pitched as a means to deliver “security” and “prosperity” for Mexico, Canada, and the U.S.
But as progressive researchers soon discovered, these warm, Orwellian words disguised backroom deals between top officials, where domestic regulations in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. would be shoe-horned to the lowest common denominator.
To quell any fears, SPP pundits insist the process is about “fine tuning” and “adjusting national regulations” given commitments made in “free trade” agreements.
Critical analysis shows the SPP is more like a corporate-led overhaul. The process itself, directed by 30 of the planet's top CEOs, is currently reviewing over 300 areas of government regulations, tasking working groups to propose “harmonized rules” in (among other things) health care, labour standards, border security, military procurement policy, bulk water exports, and corporate licensing.
With this information at our fingertips, activists have exposed the SPP for what is truly is: a sign of weakness. After being burned before, big business and their government allies were skulking about in the dark, and we just turned the lights on.
But where do we go from here?
With the SPP protests, the elite were reminded that secrecy strengthens the dissenter's cause.
But as activists began mobilizing in May 2007, we faced our own key lesson. We learned that two broad tendencies needed to work together.
On the one hand, some wanted events to focus on the SPP summit in Montebello. Those of this view ranged between some encouraging “family friendly” demonstrations, and others keen on trying to shut the SPP proceedings down through “direct action.”
On the other hand were activists who wanted “family friendly” events in both Ottawa and Montebello. Those of this view felt it was important to plan large-scale events on the weekend that people safely attend. These efforts, it was argued, could usefully compliment other “direct action” events in Montebello, and continue the outreach needed to expose the SPP.
Initially, it appeared everyone would be happy, until a mass teach-in being organized by national groups (scheduled in Papineauville, down the road from Montebello) got canned by police. Teach-in organizers felt they couldn't risk another police intervention, so they moved their event to Ottawa.
Once this happened, protesters intent on getting to Montebello were irked. Until then, events had been scheduled in both Ottawa and Montebello, but the presence of national groups in Montebello reassured some that emphasis would be put on the SPP summit itself.
When that plan changed, the aforementioned two tendencies spent weeks fighting each other.
Then, about four weeks before the SPP summit, a breakthrough happened. At the end of a painful three-hour meeting, local and national organizers agreed to plan a family friendly protest event in Montebello for Monday, August 20, the day after large-scale events in Ottawa.
Those inclined to “direct action” in Montebello agreed to respect the family friendly event. National groups felt more comfortable financing transportation costs for Montebello plans. This hardly ended disagreements, but it gave folks a common project to work towards.
Still, on the day activists were bound for Montebello, many wondered how events would turn out. Would “family friendly” activists publicly criticize “direct action” protesters? Would “direct action” protesters respect “family friendly” zones? Would agents provocateurs insert themselves to muck up the best laid plans?
In the end, with good fortune and good intentions, things worked out rather well. The police were clearly under orders not to storm the crowd, despite the fact that we didn't stay in designated protest zones.
The Council of Canadians joined with 1,500 “family friendly” protesters to present 10,000 anti-SPP petitions to the gates of the Montebello summit. After a tense fifteen minutes, some fell back 300 feet to a family friendly “green zone,” though many stayed to join “direct action” protesters who were cheered as they marched, music blaring, to the gates.
There is a lesson in these events, and it bears repeating as global justice activism moves forward.
Communication between “family friendly” and “direct action” protesters is crucial, and must be built into future organizing in the appropriate way. As we organize separately, we must continue to find ways to support each other.
We need creative “direct action” to confront the warmongers, climate change deniers, and corporate profiteers imperiling our planet. Such confrontation, in my opinion, is most effective when assault or property damage isn't part of the plan.
We also need large, inclusive, “family friendly” events to build the largest movement possible. These events, in my opinion, are most effective when organized beyond the self-defined “Left,” and when principled, plain language is used to shift public opinion.
Both strategies came together in Ottawa and Montebello. Both are required for success in the politics of corporate party crashing. Both can mobilize bottom-up dissent to the SPP, and give voice to the thousand alternatives coursing through our movement.
Believe it: a better world is still possible. Let's get on with the task of getting there.
Joel Davison Harden is a peace activist and a former leader of the Canadian Federation of Students (Ontario, 1998-2000). He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science (York University), and looks forward to keeping big business on the run.
The politics of corporate party crashing
As activists assess their next steps, many wonder: can we still work together, dig the SPP's grave still deeper, and then push it in? And where do we go from there?
>by Joel Davison Harden
August 27, 2007
The North American global justice movement just exposed the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP), the latest corporate assault on our democracy, environment and human rights.
Big business was forced to admit their elite-led project must emerge from lobbyist backrooms, and face debate in elected legislatures.
Meanwhile, other business voices (like former Liberal Deputy Leader John Manley, and the Canadian American Business Council) criticized the “lack of transparency” in the SPP process itself.
The Editorial Board of the Hill Times (a newspaper read by all federal MPs) ran a lead column demanding the SPP be brought before parliament.
This split was caused by our movement's activism, and is a partial victory in itself.
We rejected their propaganda, and refused their protest zones. We crashed the corporate Bush party in Montebello, and put big business back on the defensive where it belongs.
Even worse for Stephen Harper, that inveterate control-freak, his arrogance may finally come back to bite him.
Did Harper's apparent lack of concern for protests mask a more ominous, underhanded strategy?
Did he (or someone in his office) authorize attempts to discredit protesters through agents provocateurs?
A recent Supreme Court decision explained the Prime Minister's Office is regularly briefed on security measures for meetings when other Heads of State are involved. What might a public inquiry into this week's events dredge up?
Between this, Harper's embrace of oil barons, and his loyalty to the Bush-Cheney “War on Terror,” the conditions are ripe for activists to deliver a knockout blow this fall. The wind is back in the sails of North America's global justice movement, and not a moment too soon.
The SPP: a sign of weakness
As activists took on the SPP, we learned an important lesson, one that hints at our power.
We learned big business and government officials felt compelled to conduct the SPP process in secret, away from the prying eyes of public scrutiny.
While progressive researchers (like Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress) toiled mightily to get SPP documents, government officials largely refused access to key speeches and files.
This secrecy is a sign of weakness. A brief review of recent history demonstrates this is true.
Anyone remember the 1988 federal election that focused on a Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the U.S.? A majority of Canadians voted for parties that opposed the deal. Given the circus mirror produced by Canada's election rules, however, Brian Mulroney's Tories implemented it anyway a year later.
What about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), introduced by Jean Chretien's Liberals in 1993? When standing for election, Chretien claimed he opposed NAFTA. That, of course, didn't stop him from implementing it once his government got elected.
After these two public debacles, “free trade” advocates felt put upon. They quickly shifted to negotiating new trade deals in secret.
This led to the next fiasco in 1997, otherwise known as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).
After Maude Barlow got a leaked version of the text, she exposed the MAI for what it was: a charter of investment rights for multinational corporations, where governments could be sued for lost profits and “sheltered markets.” Mass teach-ins were held to expose the MAI and its serious implications.
Public health care, post-secondary education, and other public services were all described as “sheltered markets,” receiving “unfair subsidies” from government. The MAI proposed an international legal process to pry open these “markets” for corporate gain.
Not surprisingly, when people got wind of this, they pressured their governments to torpedo the MAI. France did so publicly in 1997, and that drove a nail into the MAI's coffin.
The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) that came later would suffer a similar fate. After large protests in Quebec City (2001) and Miami (2003), South American governments took turns snubbing it. By 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez pronounced the FTAA “dead,” and invited the world to debate strategies for “fair trade.”
As the FTAA imploded, North American big business set to work on the SPP. This time, through the mouthpiece of George W. Bush, they had a new spin: “security trumps trade.”
After the events of September 11, 2001, the SPP was pitched as a means to deliver “security” and “prosperity” for Mexico, Canada, and the U.S.
But as progressive researchers soon discovered, these warm, Orwellian words disguised backroom deals between top officials, where domestic regulations in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. would be shoe-horned to the lowest common denominator.
To quell any fears, SPP pundits insist the process is about “fine tuning” and “adjusting national regulations” given commitments made in “free trade” agreements.
Critical analysis shows the SPP is more like a corporate-led overhaul. The process itself, directed by 30 of the planet's top CEOs, is currently reviewing over 300 areas of government regulations, tasking working groups to propose “harmonized rules” in (among other things) health care, labour standards, border security, military procurement policy, bulk water exports, and corporate licensing.
With this information at our fingertips, activists have exposed the SPP for what is truly is: a sign of weakness. After being burned before, big business and their government allies were skulking about in the dark, and we just turned the lights on.
But where do we go from here?
With the SPP protests, the elite were reminded that secrecy strengthens the dissenter's cause.
But as activists began mobilizing in May 2007, we faced our own key lesson. We learned that two broad tendencies needed to work together.
On the one hand, some wanted events to focus on the SPP summit in Montebello. Those of this view ranged between some encouraging “family friendly” demonstrations, and others keen on trying to shut the SPP proceedings down through “direct action.”
On the other hand were activists who wanted “family friendly” events in both Ottawa and Montebello. Those of this view felt it was important to plan large-scale events on the weekend that people safely attend. These efforts, it was argued, could usefully compliment other “direct action” events in Montebello, and continue the outreach needed to expose the SPP.
Initially, it appeared everyone would be happy, until a mass teach-in being organized by national groups (scheduled in Papineauville, down the road from Montebello) got canned by police. Teach-in organizers felt they couldn't risk another police intervention, so they moved their event to Ottawa.
Once this happened, protesters intent on getting to Montebello were irked. Until then, events had been scheduled in both Ottawa and Montebello, but the presence of national groups in Montebello reassured some that emphasis would be put on the SPP summit itself.
When that plan changed, the aforementioned two tendencies spent weeks fighting each other.
Then, about four weeks before the SPP summit, a breakthrough happened. At the end of a painful three-hour meeting, local and national organizers agreed to plan a family friendly protest event in Montebello for Monday, August 20, the day after large-scale events in Ottawa.
Those inclined to “direct action” in Montebello agreed to respect the family friendly event. National groups felt more comfortable financing transportation costs for Montebello plans. This hardly ended disagreements, but it gave folks a common project to work towards.
Still, on the day activists were bound for Montebello, many wondered how events would turn out. Would “family friendly” activists publicly criticize “direct action” protesters? Would “direct action” protesters respect “family friendly” zones? Would agents provocateurs insert themselves to muck up the best laid plans?
In the end, with good fortune and good intentions, things worked out rather well. The police were clearly under orders not to storm the crowd, despite the fact that we didn't stay in designated protest zones.
The Council of Canadians joined with 1,500 “family friendly” protesters to present 10,000 anti-SPP petitions to the gates of the Montebello summit. After a tense fifteen minutes, some fell back 300 feet to a family friendly “green zone,” though many stayed to join “direct action” protesters who were cheered as they marched, music blaring, to the gates.
There is a lesson in these events, and it bears repeating as global justice activism moves forward.
Communication between “family friendly” and “direct action” protesters is crucial, and must be built into future organizing in the appropriate way. As we organize separately, we must continue to find ways to support each other.
We need creative “direct action” to confront the warmongers, climate change deniers, and corporate profiteers imperiling our planet. Such confrontation, in my opinion, is most effective when assault or property damage isn't part of the plan.
We also need large, inclusive, “family friendly” events to build the largest movement possible. These events, in my opinion, are most effective when organized beyond the self-defined “Left,” and when principled, plain language is used to shift public opinion.
Both strategies came together in Ottawa and Montebello. Both are required for success in the politics of corporate party crashing. Both can mobilize bottom-up dissent to the SPP, and give voice to the thousand alternatives coursing through our movement.
Believe it: a better world is still possible. Let's get on with the task of getting there.
Joel Davison Harden is a peace activist and a former leader of the Canadian Federation of Students (Ontario, 1998-2000). He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science (York University), and looks forward to keeping big business on the run.
Friday, August 24, 2007
SPP: NAFTA on Steroids.
The refusal to receive the petitions of the Council of Canadians does not seem to have received much press. This just shows how the SPP thumbs its nose at any opposition. Harper's comments about demonstrators were similarly dismissive. At least a number of trade unions joined in these protests but they get very little publicity usually. The apparent use of cops to provoke violence actually presented the protesters with their best coverage! New North American trade proposal draws fire at Montebello
Proposed Security and Prosperity Partnership is described as NAFTA on drugs
Montebello (21 August 2007) - Police and protestors clashed in this small Quebec resort town as Prime Minister Stephen Harper welcomed George Bush and Felipe Calderon to a North American leaders' summit to discuss Canada-U.S.-Mexico issues behind closed doors, especially the secrecy-shrouded Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
Described by critics as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on drugs, the SPP is the latest trade initiative that the corporate world is attempting to push into law with the co-operation of the three leaders.
Everything possible is being done during the summit to minimize opposition to the SPP. For example, Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians, was prevented Monday – despite prior arrangements – from delivering a 10,000-signature petition at the gates of the Montebello resort.
Police in riot gear, armed with batons, shields and gas masks, fired tear gas and jostled with protesters after 20 busloads of demonstrators arrived in Montebello, approximately 70 kilometres east of Ottawa. The protesters marched toward the historic log resort, ringed in advance of the summit by a four-metre-high steel security fence.
Demonstrators shouted slogans and carried banners, one reading, "Say no To AmeriCanada." The marchers included numerous labour representatives, headed by the Canadian Labour Congress.
"According to the corporate elites behind the scheme, the SPP is just a shot of what business needs to perform better and make corporate profits higher, faster and stronger. The only problem is they won’t tell us what this involves," the congress says.
"Ask any of the hundreds of thousands of workers in Canada who no longer have a good job in manufacturing or forestry and they’ll tell you that life is hard enough under NAFTA. Ask the millions of people who can see how fast our standards for everything from protecting the environment, to retirement security, to transportation infrastructure like trains and bridges have fallen in recent times. They’ll tell you the SPP is just the latest corporate party drug."
Harper greeted Bush warmly when he arrived at the resort early Monday afternoon. Asked for his reaction to the demonstrations, Harper was dismissive. “I’ve heard it’s nothing. It’s sad,” he told reporters.
NUPGE
The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is one of Canada's largest labour organizations with over 340,000 members. Our mission is to improve the lives of working families and to build a stronger Canada by ensuring that our common wealth is used for the common good. NUPGE
Proposed Security and Prosperity Partnership is described as NAFTA on drugs
Montebello (21 August 2007) - Police and protestors clashed in this small Quebec resort town as Prime Minister Stephen Harper welcomed George Bush and Felipe Calderon to a North American leaders' summit to discuss Canada-U.S.-Mexico issues behind closed doors, especially the secrecy-shrouded Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).
Described by critics as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) on drugs, the SPP is the latest trade initiative that the corporate world is attempting to push into law with the co-operation of the three leaders.
Everything possible is being done during the summit to minimize opposition to the SPP. For example, Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians, was prevented Monday – despite prior arrangements – from delivering a 10,000-signature petition at the gates of the Montebello resort.
Police in riot gear, armed with batons, shields and gas masks, fired tear gas and jostled with protesters after 20 busloads of demonstrators arrived in Montebello, approximately 70 kilometres east of Ottawa. The protesters marched toward the historic log resort, ringed in advance of the summit by a four-metre-high steel security fence.
Demonstrators shouted slogans and carried banners, one reading, "Say no To AmeriCanada." The marchers included numerous labour representatives, headed by the Canadian Labour Congress.
"According to the corporate elites behind the scheme, the SPP is just a shot of what business needs to perform better and make corporate profits higher, faster and stronger. The only problem is they won’t tell us what this involves," the congress says.
"Ask any of the hundreds of thousands of workers in Canada who no longer have a good job in manufacturing or forestry and they’ll tell you that life is hard enough under NAFTA. Ask the millions of people who can see how fast our standards for everything from protecting the environment, to retirement security, to transportation infrastructure like trains and bridges have fallen in recent times. They’ll tell you the SPP is just the latest corporate party drug."
Harper greeted Bush warmly when he arrived at the resort early Monday afternoon. Asked for his reaction to the demonstrations, Harper was dismissive. “I’ve heard it’s nothing. It’s sad,” he told reporters.
NUPGE
The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is one of Canada's largest labour organizations with over 340,000 members. Our mission is to improve the lives of working families and to build a stronger Canada by ensuring that our common wealth is used for the common good. NUPGE
SPP built around secrecy and US military command.
Imagine after 9/11 there were plans to put the entire Canadian Forces under the umbrella of a US command. I had never heard of that before. There is lots of ammunition for the anti-integration forces in this article!
Personally I think that the military integration is simply ancillary to the main project which is making things easier and more profitable for North American capital. That is why the 30 executives of the NACC are the ones participating with the leaders. There are no military leaders, NGOs, labor, or anyone else apparently. For some reason the US commands 13 members of the NACCC so it may be that there are 33 executives at the meeting. I have never seen that figure though.
SPP is built around secrecy and US military command - law expert
Sovereignty rhetoric contradicted by turnover of controls on military and immigration
OTTAWA, August 20, 2007: The agreement's title is classic framing: "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) conjures up comfortable images. Michael Byers says the agreement under discussion this week by Canadian, US and Mexican leaders Harper, Bush and Calderon should more properly be framed as a secret agreement to hand sweeping military, immigration and border control of all three countries over to the US. On Sunday, Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia told a standing-room-only forum in Ottawa about the politics and persuasion connected with the agreement under discussion behind the barricades this week at Montebello, Quebec.
I want to begin by welcoming the civil servants who have been sent to keep track of what's going on here. Like you, we love our country; unlike the people who are gathering in Montebello this week, we have nothing to hide.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership did not begin as a phenomenon after September 11, 2001. It was part of a trend that predates that time. But the proponents of North American integration seized upon 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their cause. And some of those proponents in Canada were very overt about their aspirations in the weeks and months after the terrorist atrocities in New York City and Washington, DC.
David O'Brien, the CEO of Canadian Pacific and now Chairman of the Board of Royal Bank of Canada, argued Canada would have to adopt US-style immigration policies to keep the border open. He said that we have to make North Americans secure from the outside. 'We're going to lose increasingly our sovereignty but it's necessarily so.' Mr. O'Brien is an influential man. Within months, the Canadian government had signed the Safe Third Country agreement with the United States whereby Canadian refugee policy was essentially assimilated into the refugee policy of the United States. The rights of human beings to asylum when they're being persecuted for their religious or political opinions or ethnic identities is one of the most fundamental rights of all.
Then there was Nancy Hughes Anthony, the President of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce who said that we're not going to get anywhere with our American friends unless we can show we have good strong anti-terrorist legislation and we intend to enforce it. The result was the 2001 Anti- terrorism Act, which, of course was modelled on the [US] Patriot Act.
And then there was Patrick E. Daniels, the President of Enbridge, the big energy company based in Calgary, who complained that Canada pushed its sovereignty 'a little too far.' He said it would be realistic for Canada to either get onside with US foreign policy or 'accept some change in our relationship.'
I was asked to speak about one aspect of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, namely security, or more specifically, the military. In the immediate aftermath of September 2001, plans were devised within the American and Canadian governments to put the entire Canadian Forces under the umbrella of the US Northern Command. To put all our soldiers, sailors and pilots and all their equipment under the operational control of the United States, in a much- expanded version of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Fortunately some sunshine was let in upon that thinking before it could be taken too far. Some serious credit needs to be given here to a former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who took advantage of being out of Cabinet to let the rest of us know what his former colleagues were up to.
So those who wanted to pursue the efforts of further integration of the Canadian and US military decided to take their efforts underground in arrangements that bear striking similarity to the SPP. And the SPP is part of a larger process. The Bi-National Planning Group was the military sister or brother of the SPP. Essentially it was a transborder committee of unelected bureaucrats, military officers and consultants who were given task of studying and then reporting on the options for improving the efficacy of the North American defensive system. The goal was simply to allow us to respond faster and better to the various kinds of threats that might arise.
The military officers worked away quietly in Colorado Springs, Colorado, headquarters of NORAD, as well as the US space command.... Canadian military leaders quite liked playing with the big boys and using the best military equipment in the world...
The proponents of closer military integration could not believe their luck when Stephen Harper was elected. And very shortly after Mr. Harper came to power, they released their final report... which sets out four different options for the closer integration of the Canadian and US military. Most of the report is concerned with public relations, noting that Canadians are particularly attached to sovereignty.
Imagine how you might actually explain that closer military cooperation enhances sovereignty because giving up sovereignty is an exercise in sovereignty! You actually affirm your sovereignty by giving some of it away..
The report was very very clear that its preferred option was full integration, the option that had been floated internally in 2002, the assignment of Canadian Forces to what looked like an expanded NORAD, to an umbrella command where operational control would ultimately rest with the US military.
Some steps have been taken in that direction, including, last year, the NORAD agreement to expand the sharing of maritime surveillance including within the Northwest Passage. It wasn't much noticed at the time. Only one party opposed it in Parliament, the New Democratic Party of Canada.
When the report actually came out and was put up on the website of the Bi-National Planning Group, some smart people, including possibly the Prime Minister of Canada, decided that you were not yet ready for this. That somehow it wasn't the time to make the public case for the full integration of Canadian and US forces because Mr. Harper didn't get that majority he so desperately desired. And so it was shuffled away once again, it disappeared off the website, and the Bi-National Planning Group was shut down, and who knows what they're talking about in Montebello.
But something did happen, and I'm talking about Afghanistan.... We are seeing the implementation in theatre of precisely the kind of planning that was going into the Bi-National Planning Group. We are seeing the Canadian Forces being given more and more equipment. We're even buying new tanks. We're seeing the integration of attitudes and rules of engagement with respect to issues like the treatment of detainees. Why did we not adopt the Western European approach to detainee transfer rights, following models that were provided to us by the British, the Dutch and the Danish? Because Washington wanted to do it another way. And why should we volunteer for the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan, a forward-leaning, war- fighting search and kill mission supported by US airstrikes and working in tandem with a US-led and -commanded mission that is not part of the NATO command?
Why have 67 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan? Why did Private Simon Longtin die today? The simple explanation, and it's only a partial explanation, is that there are people who want to transform the Canadian Forces into a miniature version of the US Marine Corps and want Canada to only choose missions that involve fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States; that want us to acquire equipment that integrates seamlessly with the US military, including in the relatively near future new F35 fighters. The same people who will tell you that peace-keeping is dead, that we really don't need new search-and-rescue aircraft in the second largest country on Earth, and who will tell you that those who stand up for the rights of detainees are expressing disrespect and a lack of support for the brave young Canadian men and women who serve this country in whatever mission they're given because they love this country just as much as you and I.
The integration of the Canadian and US military is not officially part of the SPP, but the SPP and the integration of the Canadian and US military are part of a larger project, and we need to address that larger project, and understand that what we're up against here does not involve the existence of an independent Canada. But as we saw with the Bi-National Planning Group, a little bit of sunshine can chase these plans away. When I look at this room I see a whole lot of sunshine
Personally I think that the military integration is simply ancillary to the main project which is making things easier and more profitable for North American capital. That is why the 30 executives of the NACC are the ones participating with the leaders. There are no military leaders, NGOs, labor, or anyone else apparently. For some reason the US commands 13 members of the NACCC so it may be that there are 33 executives at the meeting. I have never seen that figure though.
SPP is built around secrecy and US military command - law expert
Sovereignty rhetoric contradicted by turnover of controls on military and immigration
OTTAWA, August 20, 2007: The agreement's title is classic framing: "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) conjures up comfortable images. Michael Byers says the agreement under discussion this week by Canadian, US and Mexican leaders Harper, Bush and Calderon should more properly be framed as a secret agreement to hand sweeping military, immigration and border control of all three countries over to the US. On Sunday, Byers, the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia told a standing-room-only forum in Ottawa about the politics and persuasion connected with the agreement under discussion behind the barricades this week at Montebello, Quebec.
I want to begin by welcoming the civil servants who have been sent to keep track of what's going on here. Like you, we love our country; unlike the people who are gathering in Montebello this week, we have nothing to hide.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership did not begin as a phenomenon after September 11, 2001. It was part of a trend that predates that time. But the proponents of North American integration seized upon 9/11 as an opportunity to advance their cause. And some of those proponents in Canada were very overt about their aspirations in the weeks and months after the terrorist atrocities in New York City and Washington, DC.
David O'Brien, the CEO of Canadian Pacific and now Chairman of the Board of Royal Bank of Canada, argued Canada would have to adopt US-style immigration policies to keep the border open. He said that we have to make North Americans secure from the outside. 'We're going to lose increasingly our sovereignty but it's necessarily so.' Mr. O'Brien is an influential man. Within months, the Canadian government had signed the Safe Third Country agreement with the United States whereby Canadian refugee policy was essentially assimilated into the refugee policy of the United States. The rights of human beings to asylum when they're being persecuted for their religious or political opinions or ethnic identities is one of the most fundamental rights of all.
Then there was Nancy Hughes Anthony, the President of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce who said that we're not going to get anywhere with our American friends unless we can show we have good strong anti-terrorist legislation and we intend to enforce it. The result was the 2001 Anti- terrorism Act, which, of course was modelled on the [US] Patriot Act.
And then there was Patrick E. Daniels, the President of Enbridge, the big energy company based in Calgary, who complained that Canada pushed its sovereignty 'a little too far.' He said it would be realistic for Canada to either get onside with US foreign policy or 'accept some change in our relationship.'
I was asked to speak about one aspect of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, namely security, or more specifically, the military. In the immediate aftermath of September 2001, plans were devised within the American and Canadian governments to put the entire Canadian Forces under the umbrella of the US Northern Command. To put all our soldiers, sailors and pilots and all their equipment under the operational control of the United States, in a much- expanded version of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Fortunately some sunshine was let in upon that thinking before it could be taken too far. Some serious credit needs to be given here to a former Canadian foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who took advantage of being out of Cabinet to let the rest of us know what his former colleagues were up to.
So those who wanted to pursue the efforts of further integration of the Canadian and US military decided to take their efforts underground in arrangements that bear striking similarity to the SPP. And the SPP is part of a larger process. The Bi-National Planning Group was the military sister or brother of the SPP. Essentially it was a transborder committee of unelected bureaucrats, military officers and consultants who were given task of studying and then reporting on the options for improving the efficacy of the North American defensive system. The goal was simply to allow us to respond faster and better to the various kinds of threats that might arise.
The military officers worked away quietly in Colorado Springs, Colorado, headquarters of NORAD, as well as the US space command.... Canadian military leaders quite liked playing with the big boys and using the best military equipment in the world...
The proponents of closer military integration could not believe their luck when Stephen Harper was elected. And very shortly after Mr. Harper came to power, they released their final report... which sets out four different options for the closer integration of the Canadian and US military. Most of the report is concerned with public relations, noting that Canadians are particularly attached to sovereignty.
Imagine how you might actually explain that closer military cooperation enhances sovereignty because giving up sovereignty is an exercise in sovereignty! You actually affirm your sovereignty by giving some of it away..
The report was very very clear that its preferred option was full integration, the option that had been floated internally in 2002, the assignment of Canadian Forces to what looked like an expanded NORAD, to an umbrella command where operational control would ultimately rest with the US military.
Some steps have been taken in that direction, including, last year, the NORAD agreement to expand the sharing of maritime surveillance including within the Northwest Passage. It wasn't much noticed at the time. Only one party opposed it in Parliament, the New Democratic Party of Canada.
When the report actually came out and was put up on the website of the Bi-National Planning Group, some smart people, including possibly the Prime Minister of Canada, decided that you were not yet ready for this. That somehow it wasn't the time to make the public case for the full integration of Canadian and US forces because Mr. Harper didn't get that majority he so desperately desired. And so it was shuffled away once again, it disappeared off the website, and the Bi-National Planning Group was shut down, and who knows what they're talking about in Montebello.
But something did happen, and I'm talking about Afghanistan.... We are seeing the implementation in theatre of precisely the kind of planning that was going into the Bi-National Planning Group. We are seeing the Canadian Forces being given more and more equipment. We're even buying new tanks. We're seeing the integration of attitudes and rules of engagement with respect to issues like the treatment of detainees. Why did we not adopt the Western European approach to detainee transfer rights, following models that were provided to us by the British, the Dutch and the Danish? Because Washington wanted to do it another way. And why should we volunteer for the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan, a forward-leaning, war- fighting search and kill mission supported by US airstrikes and working in tandem with a US-led and -commanded mission that is not part of the NATO command?
Why have 67 Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan? Why did Private Simon Longtin die today? The simple explanation, and it's only a partial explanation, is that there are people who want to transform the Canadian Forces into a miniature version of the US Marine Corps and want Canada to only choose missions that involve fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States; that want us to acquire equipment that integrates seamlessly with the US military, including in the relatively near future new F35 fighters. The same people who will tell you that peace-keeping is dead, that we really don't need new search-and-rescue aircraft in the second largest country on Earth, and who will tell you that those who stand up for the rights of detainees are expressing disrespect and a lack of support for the brave young Canadian men and women who serve this country in whatever mission they're given because they love this country just as much as you and I.
The integration of the Canadian and US military is not officially part of the SPP, but the SPP and the integration of the Canadian and US military are part of a larger project, and we need to address that larger project, and understand that what we're up against here does not involve the existence of an independent Canada. But as we saw with the Bi-National Planning Group, a little bit of sunshine can chase these plans away. When I look at this room I see a whole lot of sunshine
Monday, August 20, 2007
Protests at Montebello.
It is good that at least some protesters are going beyond the pens. Harper's dismissive comments should be good from the PR point of view. Those with access to the leaders are 30 big business executives. I haven't seen the list yet. Aquino's remarks are even more fatuous than Harper's. Now if he had recommended that the protestors should also be granted 30 representatives to attend the meetings that would have been nice! If what is going on is so beneficial and harmless one would think that at least the press should be in on the meetings. Better still liven up CPAC by having the sessions televised.
Clashes break out at summit protest
Last Updated: Monday, August 20, 2007 | 6:15 PM ET
CBC News
Police used tear gas and pepper spray against protesters who were hurling rocks and branches during confrontations outside the leaders summit in Quebec on Monday.
Police arrested at least one protester in the small resort town of Montebello, near Ottawa, where Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss issues including border security and free trade.
The leaders began their talks Monday inside the Fairmont Le Château Montebello hotel, which is being protected by a four-metre security fence and police in riot gear who are patrolling the area on foot, in cars, on motorcycles and in helicopters.
At least 500 protesters took part in a march outside the hotel, carrying signs with slogans such as "No to Americanada." Others held a peaceful family-friendly rally away from police lines.
Continue Article
Many protesters arrived to the site by the busload from cities including Montreal, Kingston and Ottawa.
Harper dismissed the demonstration after he was told hundreds of protesters were involved.
"I've heard it's nothing. A couple hundred? It's sad," he said.
'We're going to protest where we want to protest'
Police and protesters clash in Montebello, Que.
(Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)
Some of the demonstrators went to designated protest areas — one in an empty field and the other a picnic area — while others chose to walk down Route 148 toward the hotel.
Some protesters decried the use of designated protest areas, calling them "protest pens."
"They're like cages and they want to keep people in an area where they can manage them," said Trevor Haché, who was part of a caravan of cyclists who rode from Ottawa to join the protest. "We're going to protest where we want to protest. It's our democratic right."
The two-day summit is set to focus on the broad-ranging Security and Prosperity Partnership pact signed in 2005 by the Canada, Mexico and the United States.
The SPP, meant to compliment treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, was created to boost co-operation on security, trade and public-health issues among the three countries.
But protesters say the SPP is anti-democratic because it didn't require a vote in Parliament or a change in the law.
Demonstrators carry signs to protest the leaders summit in Montebello.
(Loreen Pindera/CBC)
"If this is such a wonderful deal and it is about protecting North Americans from shoddy products or whatever they're now saying … then be proud of it, stand up, tell us what's in it … and send it to our Parliament for oversight," Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians, told CBC News in an interview from Ottawa Monday morning.
Barlow said the SPP forces Mexico and Canada to adopt Bush's notions of security, "kind of putting a zip-lock of a security perimeter around North America."
Concerned about Canada losing control
Many protesters said they are concerned about Canada losing control of its energy, water resources and border as initiatives such as the SPP treaty increase and expand.
While Harper has offered assurances that won't happen, many of the protesters said Sunday they don't believe him.
"I think ultimately, his allegiance is to the corporate kind of world," demonstrator Andy Elliott told CBC News. "He doesn't seem too concerned for the average person."
The demonstrators are also decrying the secrecy surrounding the meeting and that the only people with access to the three leaders at the summit are 30 chief executives of some of the biggest corporations in the world.
But Thomas D'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said getting access to political leaders is not the only way to be heard.
"I do not say to myself, 'If I don't get an hour with the prime minister in the next six months, I'm going to go out and protest and reject the system outright,' " he told CBC News.
"I don't do that because civilized human beings — those who believe in democracy — don't do that."
Canadian government officials said the three leaders will be able to see and hear the protesters through a video link inside if they choose to watch.
Clashes break out at summit protest
Last Updated: Monday, August 20, 2007 | 6:15 PM ET
CBC News
Police used tear gas and pepper spray against protesters who were hurling rocks and branches during confrontations outside the leaders summit in Quebec on Monday.
Police arrested at least one protester in the small resort town of Montebello, near Ottawa, where Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss issues including border security and free trade.
The leaders began their talks Monday inside the Fairmont Le Château Montebello hotel, which is being protected by a four-metre security fence and police in riot gear who are patrolling the area on foot, in cars, on motorcycles and in helicopters.
At least 500 protesters took part in a march outside the hotel, carrying signs with slogans such as "No to Americanada." Others held a peaceful family-friendly rally away from police lines.
Continue Article
Many protesters arrived to the site by the busload from cities including Montreal, Kingston and Ottawa.
Harper dismissed the demonstration after he was told hundreds of protesters were involved.
"I've heard it's nothing. A couple hundred? It's sad," he said.
'We're going to protest where we want to protest'
Police and protesters clash in Montebello, Que.
(Jonathan Hayward/Canadian Press)
Some of the demonstrators went to designated protest areas — one in an empty field and the other a picnic area — while others chose to walk down Route 148 toward the hotel.
Some protesters decried the use of designated protest areas, calling them "protest pens."
"They're like cages and they want to keep people in an area where they can manage them," said Trevor Haché, who was part of a caravan of cyclists who rode from Ottawa to join the protest. "We're going to protest where we want to protest. It's our democratic right."
The two-day summit is set to focus on the broad-ranging Security and Prosperity Partnership pact signed in 2005 by the Canada, Mexico and the United States.
The SPP, meant to compliment treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, was created to boost co-operation on security, trade and public-health issues among the three countries.
But protesters say the SPP is anti-democratic because it didn't require a vote in Parliament or a change in the law.
Demonstrators carry signs to protest the leaders summit in Montebello.
(Loreen Pindera/CBC)
"If this is such a wonderful deal and it is about protecting North Americans from shoddy products or whatever they're now saying … then be proud of it, stand up, tell us what's in it … and send it to our Parliament for oversight," Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians, told CBC News in an interview from Ottawa Monday morning.
Barlow said the SPP forces Mexico and Canada to adopt Bush's notions of security, "kind of putting a zip-lock of a security perimeter around North America."
Concerned about Canada losing control
Many protesters said they are concerned about Canada losing control of its energy, water resources and border as initiatives such as the SPP treaty increase and expand.
While Harper has offered assurances that won't happen, many of the protesters said Sunday they don't believe him.
"I think ultimately, his allegiance is to the corporate kind of world," demonstrator Andy Elliott told CBC News. "He doesn't seem too concerned for the average person."
The demonstrators are also decrying the secrecy surrounding the meeting and that the only people with access to the three leaders at the summit are 30 chief executives of some of the biggest corporations in the world.
But Thomas D'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said getting access to political leaders is not the only way to be heard.
"I do not say to myself, 'If I don't get an hour with the prime minister in the next six months, I'm going to go out and protest and reject the system outright,' " he told CBC News.
"I don't do that because civilized human beings — those who believe in democracy — don't do that."
Canadian government officials said the three leaders will be able to see and hear the protesters through a video link inside if they choose to watch.
The Montebello Summit
Sort of Tristram Shandy journalism wandering all over the place. It would be most interesting if the US decides to give Harper a bon-bon and recognise the Northwest Passage as Canadian Waters. There could be a secret quid pro quo that Canada would let the US use the passage without bothering to be searched etc. by Canadian authorities. Of course US submarines probably enter Canadian arctic waters without bothering to tell anyone. The real enemy is to become again Russia. Harper will be glad to become a new Cold Warrior. Stay tuned for Evil Empire, the Sequel.
Montebello gives the lie to all the rhetoric about accountability and transparency. The taxpayer foots the bill to ensure the the unaccountable and the untransparent continue so in security.
Leaders at Montebello summit eye hurricane warily
JANE TABER AND ALAN FREEMAN
From Monday's Globe and Mail
August 20, 2007 at 12:37 AM EDT
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President George Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon meet Monday in Montebello, Que., to discuss immigration, closer trade ties and Arctic sovereignty but their eyes will also be focused on hurricane Dean as it hurtles toward Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula.
“We are monitoring the weather very closely,” said a Mexican official Sunday as Mr. Calderon and his family spent the day relaxing with the Harper family at the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake, Que.
If it stays on course, the hurricane seems poised to wreak havoc on the Mexican resorts of Cancun and Cozumel, but is not expected to reach the region until Tuesday morning. That would leave the Mexican President enough time to complete the summit, but force him to cut short a series of bilateral meetings with Mr. Harper and other events in Ottawa on Wednesday.
Sunday, tourists were lined up at the airport in Cancun, trying to find a way out, and residents on the island of Cozumel were boarding up windows. The same region suffered heavy damage when it was struck by hurricane Wilma in 2005.
The officials noted that even if the hurricane strikes Mexico tomorrow, it would not be possible or appropriate for Mr. Calderon to visit the region until Wednesday night or Thursday.
“If there is a last-minute change, we will have to mobilize many things to get him back,” the official said.
Meanwhile, several hundred people gathered on Parliament Hill Sunday, under strong police presence, to protest against the summit and the visit by Mr. Bush. The protesters continued their peaceful march to the U.S. embassy.
More protesters are expected near the Montebello site today, again under heavy police security.
Mr. Harper is to meet Mr. Bush at 2:15 p.m. just after he arrives at the Montebello resort, on the Ottawa River just east of the capital. The Mexican leader is scheduled to arrive about an hour later to meet with Mr. Bush. The three leaders are to have a working dinner tonight.
A senior Harper official said Sunday that the Prime Minister will raise the issue of Arctic sovereignty today in his bilateral meeting with the U.S. President, gauging Mr. Bush's opinion on what the Russians are up to globally, especially in terms of the flag they planted recently on the ocean floor under the North Pole. Last month, Mr. Harper committed to building between six and eight Arctic patrol ships to ensure Canadian sovereignty over the area.
The Americans hold a much different position – they claim the waters are international.
On CTV's Question Period Sunday, however, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, said the Americans should rethink their position on the Northwest Passage for security reasons.
“I think that in the age of terror, it's in our security interests that the Northwest Passage be considered part of Canada,” said Mr. Cellucci, a Republican who was appointed to his post by Mr. Bush. “That will enable the Canadian navy to intercept and board vessels in the Northwest Passage to make sure they are not bringing weapons of mass destruction into North America. … I think that it's in our security interests that this be considered part of Canada.”
Mr. Cellucci has made his view known before. He says he has spoken to the State Department about this as well as to his successor, David Wilkins.
The Canadian official said the mission in Afghanistan will also likely be raised with Mr. Bush. The Prime Minister has said he needs a consensus from all parties to extend the mission past February, 2009.
Mr. Cellucci said, “I think this is something that the Canadians are going to have to look at as the time approaches, but the Canadian Forces have done quite well and they've made Canada proud. My hope is that the decision will be made that they continue to help that country and the people of Afghanistan.”
Mexican Ambassador Emilio Goicoechea told Question Period his President wants to raise the issue of Mexican workers coming to Canada to work in the Alberta oil sands, the construction and hotel industries. He emphasized, however, the workers would just come temporarily and then return to their families in Mexico.
The three leaders will also discuss the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a controversial initiative launched only two years ago to ensure the borders stay open to trade but to keep them secure against terrorism. Opponents to the SPP believe it threatens Canadian sovereignty.
In a recent article, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins dismissed the idea of the three governments pushing for integration.
writing that he is “certain that no one will be talking about a North American Union, or a North American Super Highway, or a North American currency, except maybe in jest.”
However, “Those who worry about integration of our countries should open their eyes,” he wrote in the special August edition of Focal Point, a magazine produced by the Canadian Foundation for the Americas, he wrote: “It is happening, and it is not being directed by the governments. It is happening from the bottom up, at the ground level. It is de facto integration and people continue to make these individual choices because they know that it works.”
Montebello gives the lie to all the rhetoric about accountability and transparency. The taxpayer foots the bill to ensure the the unaccountable and the untransparent continue so in security.
Leaders at Montebello summit eye hurricane warily
JANE TABER AND ALAN FREEMAN
From Monday's Globe and Mail
August 20, 2007 at 12:37 AM EDT
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, U.S. President George Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon meet Monday in Montebello, Que., to discuss immigration, closer trade ties and Arctic sovereignty but their eyes will also be focused on hurricane Dean as it hurtles toward Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula.
“We are monitoring the weather very closely,” said a Mexican official Sunday as Mr. Calderon and his family spent the day relaxing with the Harper family at the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake, Que.
If it stays on course, the hurricane seems poised to wreak havoc on the Mexican resorts of Cancun and Cozumel, but is not expected to reach the region until Tuesday morning. That would leave the Mexican President enough time to complete the summit, but force him to cut short a series of bilateral meetings with Mr. Harper and other events in Ottawa on Wednesday.
Sunday, tourists were lined up at the airport in Cancun, trying to find a way out, and residents on the island of Cozumel were boarding up windows. The same region suffered heavy damage when it was struck by hurricane Wilma in 2005.
The officials noted that even if the hurricane strikes Mexico tomorrow, it would not be possible or appropriate for Mr. Calderon to visit the region until Wednesday night or Thursday.
“If there is a last-minute change, we will have to mobilize many things to get him back,” the official said.
Meanwhile, several hundred people gathered on Parliament Hill Sunday, under strong police presence, to protest against the summit and the visit by Mr. Bush. The protesters continued their peaceful march to the U.S. embassy.
More protesters are expected near the Montebello site today, again under heavy police security.
Mr. Harper is to meet Mr. Bush at 2:15 p.m. just after he arrives at the Montebello resort, on the Ottawa River just east of the capital. The Mexican leader is scheduled to arrive about an hour later to meet with Mr. Bush. The three leaders are to have a working dinner tonight.
A senior Harper official said Sunday that the Prime Minister will raise the issue of Arctic sovereignty today in his bilateral meeting with the U.S. President, gauging Mr. Bush's opinion on what the Russians are up to globally, especially in terms of the flag they planted recently on the ocean floor under the North Pole. Last month, Mr. Harper committed to building between six and eight Arctic patrol ships to ensure Canadian sovereignty over the area.
The Americans hold a much different position – they claim the waters are international.
On CTV's Question Period Sunday, however, the former U.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, said the Americans should rethink their position on the Northwest Passage for security reasons.
“I think that in the age of terror, it's in our security interests that the Northwest Passage be considered part of Canada,” said Mr. Cellucci, a Republican who was appointed to his post by Mr. Bush. “That will enable the Canadian navy to intercept and board vessels in the Northwest Passage to make sure they are not bringing weapons of mass destruction into North America. … I think that it's in our security interests that this be considered part of Canada.”
Mr. Cellucci has made his view known before. He says he has spoken to the State Department about this as well as to his successor, David Wilkins.
The Canadian official said the mission in Afghanistan will also likely be raised with Mr. Bush. The Prime Minister has said he needs a consensus from all parties to extend the mission past February, 2009.
Mr. Cellucci said, “I think this is something that the Canadians are going to have to look at as the time approaches, but the Canadian Forces have done quite well and they've made Canada proud. My hope is that the decision will be made that they continue to help that country and the people of Afghanistan.”
Mexican Ambassador Emilio Goicoechea told Question Period his President wants to raise the issue of Mexican workers coming to Canada to work in the Alberta oil sands, the construction and hotel industries. He emphasized, however, the workers would just come temporarily and then return to their families in Mexico.
The three leaders will also discuss the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a controversial initiative launched only two years ago to ensure the borders stay open to trade but to keep them secure against terrorism. Opponents to the SPP believe it threatens Canadian sovereignty.
In a recent article, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins dismissed the idea of the three governments pushing for integration.
writing that he is “certain that no one will be talking about a North American Union, or a North American Super Highway, or a North American currency, except maybe in jest.”
However, “Those who worry about integration of our countries should open their eyes,” he wrote in the special August edition of Focal Point, a magazine produced by the Canadian Foundation for the Americas, he wrote: “It is happening, and it is not being directed by the governments. It is happening from the bottom up, at the ground level. It is de facto integration and people continue to make these individual choices because they know that it works.”
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Canada: Energy Pussycat
This is from rabble.
I dont like the pussycat metaphor. Lap Dog of the US seems better or even the old fashioned Maoist: running dog of US imperialism. It is clear that Harper is taking into a form of continental integration wherein Canada will be a prime reliable source of supply for oil and probably water if the US has its way.
The SPP meeting in Quebec will finalise plans away from the public eye
Canada: energy pussycat
>by Linda McQuaig
August 6, 2007
Stephen Harper likes to describe Canada as an “energy superpower.” It's a catchy claim, but a ridiculous one.
Surely an “energy superpower” would be a country that, at the very least, is assertive in taking care of its own energy needs.
Not Canada. Indeed, Canada has been almost negligent in this regard, having surrendered an astonishing degree of control over our energy to the United States in the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since then, Canada has been more energy pussycat than superpower.
Now, 14 years later, Canada's energy is once again on the table, this time as a key part of a deal called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) being negotiated between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The SPP negotiations have been underway since 2005—with heavy input from business— but the process has completely excluded the public.
This pattern will be repeated in August when George W. Bush arrives in Montebello, Que., for an SPP summit with Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. The leaders will get advice from an SPP council of business leaders but the public won't be allowed anywhere near the meeting—as the citizen group Council of Canadians discovered when it was blocked from booking a hall for a public meeting six kilometres from the summit.
One of the goals of the SPP negotiations is achieving “North American energy security.” This boils down to ensuring that the U.S.—which has inadequate reserves to meet its voracious consumption—will have guaranteed access to Canada's reserves.
This may sound like a win-win proposition. The U.S. gets access to our energy and we get rich selling it to them. But what happens if there's an energy shortage?
A recent report by the International Energy Agency predicted an oil shortage within five years as worldwide supplies fail to keep pace with growing demand.
Canada has already compromised its ability to protect Canadians during a shortage by signing NAFTA, which prohibits us from cutting back energy exports to the U.S.
Now Ottawa seems poised to move us further down this road by committing Canada to the goal of “North American”—rather than Canadian— “energy security.” This gives American needs the same weight as Canadian needs, even though it's primarily our energy that's being shared.
Canada doesn't have enough energy to supply both countries. With the U.S. devouring our once-ample reserves at a ferocious rate in recent years, we now have less than a 10-year supply of conventional oil, and less than nine years of proven natural gas reserves.
Yes, we have the massive oil sands, but developing them poses huge environmental problems.
Political economist Gordon Laxer discovered the inadequacy of Ottawa's planning when he recently asked the National Energy Board (NEB) about the security of our energy supply. He received an email back: “Unfortunately, the NEB has not undertaken any studies on security of supply.”
In a speech in London last summer, Harper captured headlines with his boast about Canada being an “energy superpower.” More significant, yet ignored, was his endorsement of the goal of “continental energy security,” and his rejection of “self-serving, monopolistic political strategies”—that is, strategies that put Canadian energy needs first.
Some might consider putting Canadian needs first to be the job of the Canadian prime minister.
But apparently not Harper. And yet he'll be the one in charge of protecting our interests in Montebello at the end of the month when Bush pushes for an even deeper Canadian commitment to satisfying America's insatiable energy appetite.
Linda McQuaig's column is originally published by The Toronto Star
I dont like the pussycat metaphor. Lap Dog of the US seems better or even the old fashioned Maoist: running dog of US imperialism. It is clear that Harper is taking into a form of continental integration wherein Canada will be a prime reliable source of supply for oil and probably water if the US has its way.
The SPP meeting in Quebec will finalise plans away from the public eye
Canada: energy pussycat
>by Linda McQuaig
August 6, 2007
Stephen Harper likes to describe Canada as an “energy superpower.” It's a catchy claim, but a ridiculous one.
Surely an “energy superpower” would be a country that, at the very least, is assertive in taking care of its own energy needs.
Not Canada. Indeed, Canada has been almost negligent in this regard, having surrendered an astonishing degree of control over our energy to the United States in the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since then, Canada has been more energy pussycat than superpower.
Now, 14 years later, Canada's energy is once again on the table, this time as a key part of a deal called the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) being negotiated between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The SPP negotiations have been underway since 2005—with heavy input from business— but the process has completely excluded the public.
This pattern will be repeated in August when George W. Bush arrives in Montebello, Que., for an SPP summit with Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. The leaders will get advice from an SPP council of business leaders but the public won't be allowed anywhere near the meeting—as the citizen group Council of Canadians discovered when it was blocked from booking a hall for a public meeting six kilometres from the summit.
One of the goals of the SPP negotiations is achieving “North American energy security.” This boils down to ensuring that the U.S.—which has inadequate reserves to meet its voracious consumption—will have guaranteed access to Canada's reserves.
This may sound like a win-win proposition. The U.S. gets access to our energy and we get rich selling it to them. But what happens if there's an energy shortage?
A recent report by the International Energy Agency predicted an oil shortage within five years as worldwide supplies fail to keep pace with growing demand.
Canada has already compromised its ability to protect Canadians during a shortage by signing NAFTA, which prohibits us from cutting back energy exports to the U.S.
Now Ottawa seems poised to move us further down this road by committing Canada to the goal of “North American”—rather than Canadian— “energy security.” This gives American needs the same weight as Canadian needs, even though it's primarily our energy that's being shared.
Canada doesn't have enough energy to supply both countries. With the U.S. devouring our once-ample reserves at a ferocious rate in recent years, we now have less than a 10-year supply of conventional oil, and less than nine years of proven natural gas reserves.
Yes, we have the massive oil sands, but developing them poses huge environmental problems.
Political economist Gordon Laxer discovered the inadequacy of Ottawa's planning when he recently asked the National Energy Board (NEB) about the security of our energy supply. He received an email back: “Unfortunately, the NEB has not undertaken any studies on security of supply.”
In a speech in London last summer, Harper captured headlines with his boast about Canada being an “energy superpower.” More significant, yet ignored, was his endorsement of the goal of “continental energy security,” and his rejection of “self-serving, monopolistic political strategies”—that is, strategies that put Canadian energy needs first.
Some might consider putting Canadian needs first to be the job of the Canadian prime minister.
But apparently not Harper. And yet he'll be the one in charge of protecting our interests in Montebello at the end of the month when Bush pushes for an even deeper Canadian commitment to satisfying America's insatiable energy appetite.
Linda McQuaig's column is originally published by The Toronto Star
Sunday, July 22, 2007
The Looming North American Union
As I recall there were considerable discussions over the European Union and some countries at first refused to join. The North American Union is really not a super political entity but simply an agreement that is in the interests of big capital on issues most important to them that involves the suppression of individual country sovereignty where the big players think that it is necessary for their interests. NAFTA has already done the same sort of thing as the article points out. We must share our natural resources with the US and at prices that are comparable to what Canadians pay.
Canadians Completely Unaware of Looming North American Union
Bush and Calderon to Visit Canada
by Kevin Parkinson
Global Research, July 17, 2007
In just over a month’s time, on August 20, the most powerful president in the world will be arriving in Montebello, Quebec for a two-day conference. President George W. Bush will be meeting with Stephen Harper and their Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderon. So far, the silence from the Canadian and American media has been deafening.
Talk to 90% of people on the street and they won’t know about this upcoming conference, and if by a slim chance they do, they won’t know the purpose of the meeting or why the leaders of Canada, United States and Mexico are meeting in the dog days of summer under what amounts to a veil of secrecy.
So, what’s this upcoming conference all about, and why are the newspapers, radio and television keeping silent about it?
The purpose of the upcoming conference is to ratify the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which was initiated by Bush, Martin and Fox in 2005 in Waco, Texas. Essentially, this so-called ‘partnership’ will result in what the politicians refer to as ‘continental integration’-newspeak for a North American Union- and basically a harmonization of 100’s of regulations, policies and laws.
In layman’s terms, it means that once this ‘partnership’ has been ratified which is a fait accompli; we will be following in the footsteps of the European Union. It will mean that Canada will become part of the North American Union by 2010, and that our resources, agricultural, health and environment issues, to name a few, will be controlled not by Canada, but by the government of the North American Union.
A huge ‘NAFTA’ highway, one quarter of a mile wide, is already being built in Texas, where private land is being expropriated, and will eventually reach the Manitoba border.
Water will be the ‘issue’ of this century, as more than 25 states in the U.S. are currently in desperate need. Where do you think they will get the water they need?
The United States is already guaranteed 60% of our natural gas resources from NAFTA, which mean that even during emergencies when we need energy, we will have to import it, while we are forced to export gas to the U.S. This is just one example of how Canada is being shortchanged, and it’s only going to get worse.
Why has there been absolutely NO public consultation on the biggest issue (North American Union) facing Canadians since Confederation? Why isn’t Guy Lauzon, our local MP for Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry, holding town hall meetings, bringing in cabinet ministers and explaining how the emerging North American Union will affect our Canadian way of life? Ask the citizens of Canada for their feedback. Isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?
Folks, I suggest that Mr. Lauzon isn’t even aware of the SPP or the North American Union, which explains why the Conservative government has denied all Canadians information to which they are entitled. If he does have something to say about it, then let him raise the issue in our riding.
Furthermore, the example of the North American Union illustrates that our government claims to be democratic, but in fact, does it act like one, or does it prefer to make the big decisions at committee level behind closed doors, while masking its real intentions?
The ratification of the SPP, and the emergence of the North American Union have been organized entirely by government committees and private enterprise. I refer readers to my website at www.realitycheck.typepad.com
for further information on the North American Union.
If our citizenry allows the North American Union to come into existence, then our way of life will change drastically, for the years to come. With privatization of our resources, increased foreign ownership, and a Canadian government with less and less authority, our children and grandchildren will be come ‘North Americans’ and our quality of life will drastically decline.
The founding fathers of Canada must be rolling over in their graves.
Author's website at http://realitycheck.typepad.com/
Global Research Articles by Kevin Parkinson
Canadians Completely Unaware of Looming North American Union
Bush and Calderon to Visit Canada
by Kevin Parkinson
Global Research, July 17, 2007
In just over a month’s time, on August 20, the most powerful president in the world will be arriving in Montebello, Quebec for a two-day conference. President George W. Bush will be meeting with Stephen Harper and their Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderon. So far, the silence from the Canadian and American media has been deafening.
Talk to 90% of people on the street and they won’t know about this upcoming conference, and if by a slim chance they do, they won’t know the purpose of the meeting or why the leaders of Canada, United States and Mexico are meeting in the dog days of summer under what amounts to a veil of secrecy.
So, what’s this upcoming conference all about, and why are the newspapers, radio and television keeping silent about it?
The purpose of the upcoming conference is to ratify the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which was initiated by Bush, Martin and Fox in 2005 in Waco, Texas. Essentially, this so-called ‘partnership’ will result in what the politicians refer to as ‘continental integration’-newspeak for a North American Union- and basically a harmonization of 100’s of regulations, policies and laws.
In layman’s terms, it means that once this ‘partnership’ has been ratified which is a fait accompli; we will be following in the footsteps of the European Union. It will mean that Canada will become part of the North American Union by 2010, and that our resources, agricultural, health and environment issues, to name a few, will be controlled not by Canada, but by the government of the North American Union.
A huge ‘NAFTA’ highway, one quarter of a mile wide, is already being built in Texas, where private land is being expropriated, and will eventually reach the Manitoba border.
Water will be the ‘issue’ of this century, as more than 25 states in the U.S. are currently in desperate need. Where do you think they will get the water they need?
The United States is already guaranteed 60% of our natural gas resources from NAFTA, which mean that even during emergencies when we need energy, we will have to import it, while we are forced to export gas to the U.S. This is just one example of how Canada is being shortchanged, and it’s only going to get worse.
Why has there been absolutely NO public consultation on the biggest issue (North American Union) facing Canadians since Confederation? Why isn’t Guy Lauzon, our local MP for Stormont, Dundas and South Glengarry, holding town hall meetings, bringing in cabinet ministers and explaining how the emerging North American Union will affect our Canadian way of life? Ask the citizens of Canada for their feedback. Isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?
Folks, I suggest that Mr. Lauzon isn’t even aware of the SPP or the North American Union, which explains why the Conservative government has denied all Canadians information to which they are entitled. If he does have something to say about it, then let him raise the issue in our riding.
Furthermore, the example of the North American Union illustrates that our government claims to be democratic, but in fact, does it act like one, or does it prefer to make the big decisions at committee level behind closed doors, while masking its real intentions?
The ratification of the SPP, and the emergence of the North American Union have been organized entirely by government committees and private enterprise. I refer readers to my website at www.realitycheck.typepad.com
for further information on the North American Union.
If our citizenry allows the North American Union to come into existence, then our way of life will change drastically, for the years to come. With privatization of our resources, increased foreign ownership, and a Canadian government with less and less authority, our children and grandchildren will be come ‘North Americans’ and our quality of life will drastically decline.
The founding fathers of Canada must be rolling over in their graves.
Author's website at http://realitycheck.typepad.com/
Global Research Articles by Kevin Parkinson
Sunday, July 15, 2007
RCMP, U.S. army block public forum on Security and Prosperity Partnership
This is typical of the type of extensive security now employed together with attempts to keep any demonstrators literally miles away from the event 25 km to be exact. Of course the forum is not really blocked it will just have to be held outside the perimeter. I wonder if there will be any coverage at all of the Forum.
MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 11, 2007
RCMP, U.S. Army block public forum on the Security and Prosperity Partnership
The Council of Canadians has been told it will not be allowed to rent a municipal community centre for a public forum it had planned to coincide with the next Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21.
The Municipality of Papineauville, which is about six kilometres from Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the municipality to rent the Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public forum on Sunday August 19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders Summit.
“It is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians,” said Brent Patterson, director of organizing with the Council of Canadians. “Meanwhile, six kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada will have unimpeded access to our political leaders.”
As well as being shut out of Papineauville, the Council of Canadians has been told that the RCMP and the SQ will be enforcing a 25-kilometre security perimeter around the Chateau Montebello, where Stephen Harper will meet with George W. Bush and Felipe Calderón on August 20 and 21. According to officials in Montebello, there will be checkpoints at Thurso and Hawkesbury, and vehicles carrying more than five people will be turned back.
Founded in 1985, the Council of Canadians is Canada’s largest citizens’ organization, with members and chapters across the country. The organization works to protect Canadian independence by promoting progressive policies on fair trade, clean water, safe food, public health care, and other issues of social and economic concern to Canadians.
MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 11, 2007
RCMP, U.S. Army block public forum on the Security and Prosperity Partnership
The Council of Canadians has been told it will not be allowed to rent a municipal community centre for a public forum it had planned to coincide with the next Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20 and 21.
The Municipality of Papineauville, which is about six kilometres from Montebello, has informed the Council of Canadians that the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec (SQ) and the U.S. Army will not allow the municipality to rent the Centre Communautaire de Papineauville for a public forum on Sunday August 19, on the eve of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders Summit.
“It is deplorable that we are being prevented from bringing together a panel of writers, academics and parliamentarians to share their concerns about the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canadians,” said Brent Patterson, director of organizing with the Council of Canadians. “Meanwhile, six kilometres away, corporate leaders from the United States, Mexico and Canada will have unimpeded access to our political leaders.”
As well as being shut out of Papineauville, the Council of Canadians has been told that the RCMP and the SQ will be enforcing a 25-kilometre security perimeter around the Chateau Montebello, where Stephen Harper will meet with George W. Bush and Felipe Calderón on August 20 and 21. According to officials in Montebello, there will be checkpoints at Thurso and Hawkesbury, and vehicles carrying more than five people will be turned back.
Founded in 1985, the Council of Canadians is Canada’s largest citizens’ organization, with members and chapters across the country. The organization works to protect Canadian independence by promoting progressive policies on fair trade, clean water, safe food, public health care, and other issues of social and economic concern to Canadians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)