I never thought I would see the day when I would write a rebuttal against something Snopes (Urban Legends) wrote. However, the day has come.
This morning, sifting through my news headlines and NewsVine snippets, I came across the following titled article – North American Union (NewsVine headline read: North American Union is a Hoax) and based on the following claim:
The leaders of Canada, the United States, and Mexico agreed in 2005 to subsume their countries into a greater “North American Union” by the year 2010.
The collected email (January 2008):
I’ve heard rumors going around recently that President Bush, Mexican President Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Martin met in Waco, Tx in 2005 and agreed to create a North American Union (NAU). In this plan it was (supposedly) outlined that by 2010 the borders between the three countries would be dissolved and there would only be a common border surrounding the former countries. Further, the plan called for a purposeful reduction in the value of the dollar to help facilitate the creation of a new currency (the Amero) common to the NAU. Also part of the plan is for the US to give up its sovereignty.
First, we all know how sentences and paragraphs can be worded in such a way as to create a written illusion. In the email above, a persona was asking a question that he/she had read somewhere, received it from an email or was watching TV media. So, far, no problem – there isn’t any North American Union as I am writing this – but quite incorrect that it is not in the planning. Snopes “Status” line reads: False.
Myth Blaster Verdict: Multiple answer – True in the fact that the three heads of government have been discussing it and President GW Bush is promoting it; however, not all the details are available as to what exactly they talked about during those meetings because it was a closed-door meeting. If you check the articles I posted concerning this subject (under “North American Union”) in the category pull-down menu in the right column, you will find as much detail as I could find at the time – so you can consider this an update and verification of information. The key words above are: “discussing it”. Which Snopes also posts a link, as seen below from a transcript of their “North American Union” entry –
In the “Origins” section, Snopes writes:
Origins: In March 2005, the leaders of the United States, Canada, and Mexico (President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Paul Martin, and President Vicente Fox, respectively) met in Texas to discuss plans for increased cooperation between three countries in areas of common interest, such as border security, protection against terrorist threats, improved trade relations, competitiveness in the global marketplace, the combating of infectious diseases, and disaster response.
No doubt these things WERE discussed – but it doesn’t mean that the plan to create North American Union is on the agenda of the Bush administration and the Democrats, who sit on the opposite side of the political aisle, has not as much as whimpered about it – but the plan is semi-secretive in a way that should alarm anyone.
Snopes continues:
Contrary to rumor expressed in the example quoted above, the three men did not sign any treaty or agreement to subsume the sovereignty of their countries to a greater entity called the North American Union (NAU), eliminate their common borders, or create a common currency (akin to the Euro) to replace their nations’ currencies. What the leaders agreed to was the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), a “dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries.” The SPP is not itself an agreement or a treaty, it is not a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union or to establish a common currency, nor does it seek to alter or subsume the sovereignty of those three countries.
Once again, the wording in which Snopes presents is true; however, like most media sources today – they only present a portion of what is really going on. And a NewsVine “seed” source immediately calls it or the truth that George W. Bush, as his father, George H.W. Bush, has/had dreams of such a union – his father taking it further by declaring a “New World Order”. I will explain further shortly. However, Snopes continues with the concept that this is to take place by a given date – suspected, but hasn’t been established as concrete as of this writing. It has been difficult because it is an almost secret affair and, not rightfully, for the most part, out of public view. Remember that most of these meetings were set up with the public not being invited, and some without any members of the media. Why? Closed door meetings should not be allowed – whether it is the White House or Congress – unless portions of the meeting contain speech or written material that are classified. …
The notion that the establishment of a North American Union (along with the dissolving of national borders and creation of a common currency) is set to take place in 2010 stems from proposals such as Building a North American Community (a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales) which advocate more aggressive plans for North American cooperation, such as the “establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.” However, such proposals are merely analyses and recommendations developed by independent “think tanks”; they are not treaties, legislation, or official blueprints for future governmental actions.
Not yet.
Snopes, then continues with a final explanation of what the so-called North American Union concept could be derived from the present SPP:
None of this is to say that the three North American countries might not someday decide to form closer ties along the lines of the European Union, perhaps with a common currency and more fluid borders. But there is currently no official government plan underway to make all that happen by 2010.
There isn’t any “current” plan to enact the idea of a NAU – but Snopes doesn’t present the indications that caused me to rebut their article. [January 9th 2008]
I have written 13 articles (major ones linked below) that either mention or describe in detail the concept the Bush administration is planning – called the “North American Union” – a description of the concept and the preliminary policy is the SPP.
The term “New World Order” is a term that has been used in history, and this was used by GW’s father, a President of the United States – GHW Bush. Wikipedia describes the history of the term:
Many believe the idea of the “new world order” originated in the early 1900s with Cecil Rhodes, who advocated that the British Empire and the United States should jointly impose a Federal World Government (with English as the official language) to bring about lasting world “peace” in order to facilitate this, Rhodes founded the Rhodes Scholarship as a global brotherhood of future leaders. Lionel Curtis, who also believed in this idea, founded the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Groups in 1909, which led to the establishment of the British-based Royal Institute for International Affairs in 1919 and the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations in 1920. The concept was further developed by Edward M. House, a close advisor to Woodrow Wilson during the negotiations to set up the League of Nations (it is unclear whether it was House or Wilson who invented the actual phrase). Another important influence was the futurist H.G. Wells, a vigorous advocate for world government. …
In recent history, Gerald Ford, in his Declaration of Interdependence, October 24th, 1975 stated:
We must join with others to bring forth a new world order … Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.
In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, President George H.W. Bush used “new world order” in a speech made on September 11th, 1990, and Wikipedia’s entry states:
In it he described the United States’ objectives for post cold-war cooperation with the former Soviet Union, using the phrase “new world order.”
In fact, that speech was titled “Toward a New World Order” as spoken to a joint session of the United States Congress, of which I saw the televised coverage of it.
Then –
In October 2004 the Independent Task Force on North America, a project organized by the Council on Foreign Relations, proposes the establishment of a North American economic and security community, generally referred to as the North American Union. It has been proposed by Robert Pastor, a vice-chairman of the task force, that the “North American Union” would have a common currency, the amero.
So, you see – there were and ARE plans of something called the “North American Union” – presently under a different policy name – SPP, and the concept that would be a model of the European Union, which exists today. The “task force” is officially called SPP. (As an odd twist, SPP also stands for Samoan Plantation Pidgin, an English-based pidgin language …)
The “scare” portion of this terminology, thoughts of a conspiracy and concept of the NAU stems from H.G. Wells, who wrote a non-fiction book in 1940 entitled: The New World Order – a description of what he foresaw as happening in the future …
…when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.
H.G. Wells –
… Called his effort to organize prominent intellectuals behind the idea of establishing a World Government “The Open Conspiracy” (a benevolent one) in his 1928 book by the same name.
The Wikipedia entry continues with other usage of the term, on into recent periods of history by people well-known publicly like Patrick J. Buchanan, considered to be an ultra, extreme right-wing conservative, as well as the fundamentalist evangelical Christian, Pat Robertson.
Whether the fears are substantiated or not, the benefits of such a world government would be that it would be set up like the United States, in which there is a federal government with each state having its own government, yet in allegiance to the federal/central government entity and with the same or similar “world constitution” as the United States Constitution. Looking at it in another view, people fear it will develop into what the United States seems to be steering for – a socialist democracy, and finally deteriorating into a total statist state of socialism or communism.
This is the historical background of this particular ideology. But several reputable people have performed their homework and connect-the-dots between the advocacy and establishment of NAFTA, then the disregard, on the US government’s part, to enforce the laws of illegal immigration, and then the forming (physically and ideologically) of the SPP – aka “North American Union”.
In respect to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) it was established to
… eliminate the majority of tariffs on products traded among the United States, Canada and Mexico, and gradually phases out other tariffs over a 10-year period. Restrictions were to be removed from many categories, including motor vehicles, computers, textiles, and agriculture. The treaty also protects intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, and trademarks), and outlines the removal of investment restrictions among the three countries.
NAFTA was an expansion of an earlier agreement made between Canada and the United States (Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1988), and it is alleged that this treaty has also expanded and explains why President GW Bush has been so eager to please the Mexican government concerning the US southern border, illegal immigrants, and the advocacy of an amnesty for illegal immigrants who have been living and working here and not deported.
That is where the “conspiracy” theory is established; however, there are even more factors that point to this secretive plan by the Bush administration – which Snopes (for whatever reason) left out of its decision to claim that the North American Union is nothing but a conspiracy theory. The sprinkled truth in Snopes‘ entry is that it is false that this plan is in place or is an official treaty. President GW Bush, as his father, knows that the American people would not accept such a treaty and neither would the majority of Congress; therefore certain actions have been taken in order to gradually step into the concept of a North American Union – complete with the “amero” currency proposed by Robert Pastor, as described above.
Ron Paul, who is presently a candidate for the presidency of 2008, is against a North American Union and the concept of it, or the events and policies that are leading to it. For example, in the process, despite protest, a “NAFTA Superhighway” is meant to allow Mexican commercial truck traffic to travel from Mexico, through the United States, and into Canada. The main complaint there is that the Bush administration is ignoring safety and security restrictions that US truck drivers and companies must adhere to, but Mexican commercial truck industry will not. This issue and Mr. Paul’s stance on other issues has caused him to be alienated by his own political party elitists, and that includes members of the media – such as the recent Fox News controversy where Ron Paul is not allowed to debate with the other Republican candidates. It is a ploy to remove him from the primary election picture and ultimately the final election of this year. As things are added up, once someone knows the history of all of this – one can see the concerns of the American people – especially in light of the intelligence agency and Bush administration scandal brought to light by a whistleblowing naturalized American translator. Ron Paul is a danger to the status quo of the Republican Party.
In summary, the Snopes entry does not address the complex history and background of the term or ideology of the North American Union. Therefore, the answer or rebuttal to this is also complex – some of it is truth and some of it has much information left out. So –
Is the North American Union in place or exist? NO.
Is it in the making or planning within the present established policy and SPP organization and task force? YES.
Frankly, the writers of Snopes may have gotten too much information from the government website – SPP Myths vs Facts.
RESOURCES AND REFERENCES:
Details supporting the Amero among bankers and financial pundits. [World Net Daily News]
Former Mexican president, Vicente Fox confirms claims on Larry King interview.
The Late Great U.S.A. by Jerome Corsi
Conspiracy Watch, May 2007 – Mother Jones magazine declares the Amero an academic concept without real potential
Political Left comments that the Amero is a “natural outcome from NAFTA and globalization” (a progressive/Sociocrat word representing the concept of a “New World Order”. Common Dreams and Progressive U
NAU – Human Events
Analysis of the Amero – Canada Free Press
An interview with Corsi – Salon
No North American Union – JBS.org
North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA – Jerome R. Corsi
North American Union news releases – Source Watch
Treason Abounds ~ Gov’t Cabal Plots North American Union (NAU)
Stop the North American Union – Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D.
Congressman: Superhighway about North American Union – Rep. Ron Paul
Urban Legend of “North American Union” feeds on fears – Philip Dine, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway – Human Events
North American Union – YouTube
Lou Dobbs – North American Union – CNN Transcripts
Is Amero for Real? – World Net Daily
The Plan to Replace the Dollar with the ‘Amero’ – Human Events
New World Order Illuminati Conspiracy – Conspiracy Archive
What is the New World Order? – ThreeWorldWars.com
Political Positions of Ron Paul – Wikipedia
Myth Blaster – Illegal Immigration and NAU – Lighthouse Patriot Journal
China Aggression and North American Union – A Conspiracy Myth? – Lighthouse Patriot Journal
North American Union Is Not A Dead Issue – Lighthouse Patriot Journal
Connecting the Dots: NAU and Illegal Immigration Amnesty – Lighthouse Patriot Journal
Crisis – The “Immigration Reform” Bill – Legislative Alert! – Lighthouse Patriot Journal
Coming To Terms – The Existence of a Fifth Column in the Western World – Lighthouse Patriot Journal
Random Thoughts – Politics is Insane – Lighthouse Patriot Journal
Say “No” to SPP – August Review
Thank you so much for writing up this excellent “rebuttal.” I had it on my ToDo list ever since Scopes came out with their NAU hit piece and people point to it as “proof from God” that the NAU doesn’t exist. You’ve saved me a lot of time…
So many people out there must not believe in the most basic principle of economics. Why do they think Scopes is somehow above financial-subversion or faulty research?
Celtic Rebel:
I really dig your handle, being from a Celtic background (mother’s family was from Wales), as well as enjoying Celtic form of music and art.
Anyway …
Thanks for the accolade. After all this time, I was surprised about Snopes unobjectiveness, at least in the entry noted.
I believe that some folks don’t understand the basic principles of economics, not that they “believe” or not.
For the most part, Snopes has been objective and unbiased in their entries; however, it appears this is not true when it comes to their politically or civic oriented subject material. Or maybe this is just a unique entry where the total information was limited. Don’t know. I just had to inform folks of this unobjective entry.
Best regards and thansk again for stopping by and sharing your thoughts – look forward to hearing from you again in the future.
Keith,
Just thought I’d chime in and lend a helping hand on this topic.
The SPP also established the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) at its second summit, held in Cancún, Quintana Roo, Mexico, in March 2006. This council is composed of 30 corporate representatives from some of North America’s largest companies. Its mandate is to set priorities for the SPP and maintain the drive for NAU integration through successive changes in government in all three countries.
Some of the following information is publicly available on Wikipedia verbatim and some I’ve paraphrased. As noted, some linked documents have been removed from the Council of the Americas website.
The North American Competitiveness Council was officially born on March 31, 2006 at the second annual summit of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The NACC was officially launched on June 15, 2006 at a joint press conference held by Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio García de Alba and Canadian Industry Minister Maxime Bernier.
Unflattering(?) accounts of the meetings, NACC3.pdf and NACC June 15 Post Ministerial Report.pdf, from the Council of the Americas have since been removed from their website. At these meetings attendees purportedly discussed “marrying policy issues with business priorities”, the “active engagement of the North American business community”, and the purpose of institutionalizing the North American business community’s involvement in the SPP process, in order “so that the work will continue through changes in administrations.” The NACC will make sure that, “governments look to the private sector to tell them what needs to be done.” According to a Canadian press release, the NACC “has a mandate to provide governments with recommendations on broad issues such as border facilitation and regulation, as well as the competitiveness of key sectors including automotive, transportation, manufacturing and services.”
The NACC met again in Washington, D.C., on August 15, 2006. The meeting was chaired by Ron Covais, President of the Americas for Lockheed Martin, and was co-hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Council of the Americas – both U.S. NACC co-secretariats. The U.S. business leaders outlined their key priorities as “standards and regulatory cooperation, border security and infrastructure, supply chain management, energy integration, innovation, and external dimensions,” but the NACC as a whole eventually agreed on three overall priorities: border crossing facilitation (to be handled by the Canadian NACC members), regulatory convergence (to be handled by the U.S. NACC) and energy integration, which the Mexican NACC members would handle.
The North American Competitiveness Council met with SPP ministers for the first time on February 23, 2007 in Ottawa. At that meeting, the business council released a preliminary report containing over 50 recommendations for continental integration, including a North American resource pact and intensified regulatory convergence between all three countries.
On July 26, 2007, the conservative, non-partisan U.S. government watchdog Judicial Watch notified Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez that it was seeking access to the meetings and records of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) – the federal open meetings law (5 U.S.C App. 2 §3(2)). “Specifically,” said Judicial Watch in a press release, the group, “seeks to attend and/or participate in meetings of the NACC and its U.S. component subcommittees.”
The NACC met again with SPP ministers and NAFTA leaders on August 21, 2007, at the Chateau Montebello hotel in Quebec, Canada. It was the only non-governmental organization with full access to the meeting, the third Security and Prosperity Partnership Leaders Summit since March 2005. The group of CEOs released another report praising the Canadian, Mexican and U.S. governments for moving quickly on NACC recommendations for a North American Regulatory Cooperation Framework and Intellectual Property Action Plan. The NACC report explained that the group is prepared, “to move beyond our initial report” and would be “pleased to engage on other strategic issues affecting the competitiveness and security of the North American economies.”
Until the February 23, 2007 NACC/SPP meeting in Ottawa, there had been very little media coverage of the North American Competitiveness Council, its mandate or its meetings. In fact, THE ONLY MAINSTREAM NORTH AMERICAN SOURCE TO WRITE ABOUT THE NACC HAS BEEN CANADA’S MACLEAN’S MAGAZINE, which ran a story on September 13 by Luiza Savage called “Meet NAFTA 2.0.”
Savage described the NACC as a “cherry-picked group of executives who were whisked to Cancun in March by the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, and asked to come up with a plan for taking North American integration beyond NAFTA.”
Ron Covais of Lockheed Martin told Savage that, “The guidance from the ministers was, ‘tell us what we need to do and we’ll make it happen,’” and that rather than going through the legislative process in any country, the Security and Prosperity Partnership must be implemented in incremental changes by executive agencies, bureaucrats and regulators. “We’ve decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes,” Covais tells Savage, “because we won’t get anywhere.”
Despite a lack of in-depth information about the NACC, opposition to it in both the U.S. and Canada has focused on the fact that IT GRANTS THE CORPORATE SECTOR A FORMAL ROLE IN THE SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP WHICH HAS THUS FAR BEEN DENIED TO THE PUBLIC, CITIZENS ORGANIZATIONS, LABOUR AND MANY LEGISLATORS, WHO ARE STILL IN THE DARK ABOUT THE CONTINENTAL PACT. In Canada, the Council of Canadians has run several articles about the NACC in its publication, Canadian Perspectives. The citizens organization is calling for the corporate body to be disbanded, and for the Security and Prosperity Partnership to be brought to the Canadian Parliament for a full legislative debate.
Finally, why was the following Resolution put forward in Congress on January 22, 2007 saying “…the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, representing a tri-lateral agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico…”? Notice they called it an agreement. If there is no Government plan underway for a North American Union, and no agreement, then why does this resolution call for a stop to NAU and the activities of the SPP???
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 40
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2007
Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. WAMP, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. PAUL, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. DUNCAN, and Ms. FOXX) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Whereas the United States Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security participated in the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, representing a tri-lateral agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico designed, among other things, to facilitate common regulatory schemes between these countries;
Whereas reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent United States trade, transportation, homeland security, and border security functions and that the SPP will continue to do so in the future;
Whereas the actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border security by eliminating obstacles to migration between Mexico and the United States actually makes the United States-Mexico border less secure because Mexico is the primary source country of illegal immigrants into the United States;
Whereas according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly increased since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);
Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA and the SPP;
Whereas the regulatory and border security changes implemented and proposed by the SPP violate and threaten United States sovereignty;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union to facilitate trade between the SPP countries;
Whereas the State of Texas has already begun planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transportation project beginning at the United States-Mexico border, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA Superhighway System;
Whereas it could be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would likely increase the insurance rates for American drivers;
Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would likely include funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States
Etc.
According to this site, http://www.stopthenau.org/index.html#State_Actions, “In 2007, 16 states had Anti-NAU legislation and 3 states passed Anti-NAU or Anti-SPP legislation in both their House and Senate”
That is a lot of legislative opposition to a plan that SNOPES claims does not exist!!!
Paul Rye:
Thanks for sharing this information, which adds to the information I provided. I appreciate you taking the time not only to stop by and read my article, but also providing a comprehensive addition to it.
Best Regards …