Ten Easy Questions and Ten Tougher Ones
Regarding the SPPNA

(Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America)

Miguel Pickard - 17-Aug-2007 -

The author wishes to thank Dwight D. Dyer of Global Exchange for his
comments and suggestions, which greatly improved a previous version of
this document.

Summary: This fact sheet is intended to be a first introduction to the
topic of the SPPNA (hereinafter SPP), initials of a very undemocratic
alliance between Canada, Mexico and the United States. On August 21, 2007,
the chief executives of Canada, Mexico and the United States met in
Montebello, Quebec, to discuss the SPP. Showing total indifference for
democracy, the three governments are reaching crucially important
decisions with no prior consultation or consent of civil society. The
summit received almost no press coverage in the US, but got reasonably
good exposure in Mexico and Canada. We present herein reasons why the
citizens of all three countries need to follow SPP developments.

1. What does SPPNA mean?

The initials stand for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America, a fairly new regional integration initiative that dates formally
from March 23, 2005 when the presidents of Mexico and the United States,
and the Canadian prime minister met in Waco, Texas.

2. Is the SPP related to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) that
Presidents Carlos Salinas and Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney signed in 1993?

Yes, it is related and some analysts even call the SPP "NAFTA plus". But
there are important differences.

One crucial difference is that the SPP is not an "agreement" as is NAFTA.
If it were, it would be subject to scrutiny by the federal legislative
branches in the three countries. But under the SPP, the chief executives
are signing so-called regulations, hundreds of them, according to some
reports. These are similar to presidential decrees and are therefore
exempt from legislative review. Civil society has been given very little
information about the content of these regulations or the process by which
they are negotiated.

3. Why is it important that I know something about the SPP?

Citizens of all three countries are concerned because our democratic
rights and sovereignty as nations are being surrendered to the US
government and large corporations. At the behest, or insistence, of the
Bush administration, the governing elites of the other two countries have
worked rapidly to "securitize" the region, which, at least in Mexico, has
translated into increased militarization. The SPP is also part of the
growing corporate takeover of activities and functions that used to lie in
the public sector. Changes are being made in laws, norms, standards,
regulations, practices, to facilitate international trade and so increase
the profitability of certain corporations, but which in some cases weaken
labor, consumer protection and environmental standards. Finding out about
the SPP is a necessary first step in detaining its corrosive effects on
democracy and national sovereignty.

4. Doesn´t the SPP have to do with trade between our three countries?

Yes, it does, but it also goes far beyond trade issues. The Canadian
citizens´ organization Common Frontiers explains it as follows:

The SPP initiative is intended to harmonize many Canadian and Mexican
domestic and foreign policies with those of the U.S. Under the guise of
protecting citizens from the threat of terrorism and also facilitating
trade, this initiative would involve drastic measures such as a deeper
integration of North American energy markets, harmonized treatment of
immigrants, refugees or tourists from abroad, and the creation of common
security policies. (Press Bulletin, Common Frontiers, 27-Mar-06)

5. Why so much emphasis on security?

After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the pretext for many changes is
"security concerns" in the face of "world terrorism". In keeping with this
mindset, US government strategists are quietly demanding that neighbors
Mexico and Canada enact or reform laws and measures to increase security
under US guidelines. The elites in both countries have happily and even
eagerly acquiesced.

We believe that the SPP is also being implemented in anticipation of
several phenomena.

One phenomenon, perhaps the most important, is the US´s enormous appetite
for energy resources. The access to abundant energy supplies and their
control, preferably by US corporate giants, is perhaps the primary motive
that explains US activities throughout the world, from imperial and
illegitimate wars to the negotiation of unfair trade agreements and, now,
the signing of regulations. The invasion of Iraq by US armed forces in
2003 is just the most recent example.

A second phenomenon is the global warming crisis and the increasing
shortage of water that all Earth´s inhabitants will soon face. In response
to the planet´s increasing thirst, the US is working to control and assure
sufficient water from nearby sources, a fact that puts pressure on water
supplies in southeast Mexico and throughout Canada. Canada´s water in
particular has been tabbed a US national security issue by the Bush
administration.

Still a third phenomenon has to do with the trade war already being waged
between the world´s three main economic blocs. One of them is the European
Union, the other is an Asian "bloc" headed by Japan and China, and the
third bloc is essentially NAFTA. Each bloc is closing ranks with
neighboring countries in different ways. We believe the US is positioning
itself to control the Americas and the Caribbean in its trade wars with
the other economic forces. The US wishes to control the continent´s
strategic natural resources to help guarantee mainly energy supplies (oil,
natural gas and electricity), but also access to other resources such as
land, minerals and the region´s enormous biodiversity (Brazil, Colombia,
and Meso-America are extremely species rich).

Furthermore, the Americas are, or will soon be, a preferential market for
US goods and services. The 34 countries of the Americas (all except Cuba)
have a combined population of 800 million, 500 million of whom live
outside the United States, and multinational corporations see the enormous
potential of privileged access for their products in this region.

In addition to trade and natural resource issues, Washington has since
2001 exercised greater control regarding the security and militarization
of the Americas. When the military takes on a greater role in the internal
affairs of any country, the result is a tendency towards the
criminalization of social protest (a fact of life now in Mexico).

6. Who´s behind the SPP?

Two main entities are pushing it forward. One is the US government, which
considers the SPP to be an ideal initial step in a strategy of integrating
the American continent in key areas under the pretext of "trade
facilitation". It is true that the SPP does have aspects related to trade,
but there are others that many times go unreported in the mass media,
i.e., the ones mentioned above--access to energy resources, security,
militarization. When the mass media report on the SPP they often mention
only the trade aspects and gloss over other important topics.

Even the center-left press in the US falls into this trap. The Nation
magazine reported that the SPP is a "relatively mundane formal
bureaucratic dialogue" and accepted at face value Assistant Secretary of
Commerce David Bohigian´s claim that the SPP has to do with "simple stuff
like, for instance, in the US we sell baby food in several different
sizes; in Canada, it´s just two different sizes". (The Nation, Aug. 27,
2007, www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes).

The other actor pushing the SPP is the private sector, especially the
large corporations that are eager to take advantage of the expansion of
"free trade" and the access to natural resources that the SPP is
promoting. In order to promote their trade interests within the SPP,
corporate executives created the North American Competitiveness Council.
The NACC is made up of 10 businessmen from each country (generally CEOs
from major corporations), and its purpose is to make recommendations to
government leaders and officials, in order to secure maximum protection
for their profits and interests. It is the only non-governmental body to
have access and influence in SPP proceedings.

7. How is the control of natural resources to be ensured?

One way is through privatization. When a country´s strategic resources are
sold, corporations have an opportunity to buy and control what was once in
the public domain. The corporations best poised to profit are from the US,
but Canadian and some Mexican corporations will be winners too. As a
general policy, the US government, either directly or though institutions
it controls, e.g., the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, has
insisted for years on the privatization of state corporations. In Mexico
these include the state oil company PEMEX and the Federal Electricity
Commission, as well as water companies, health and educational
institutions, etc. "Encouragement" by the US led to the privatization
during the 80s and 90s of other strategic state sectors (the telephone
company, airlines, trains, ports, and mass media, among others).

Another way is through treaties such as NAFTA and "partnerships" such as
the SPP that severely restrict a country´s sovereignty in matters of
natural resource use. For example, as part of its 1989 free-trade
agreement with the United States, Canada lost the right to reduce
unilaterally its exports of oil to the US. Although Mexico did not
formally agree to similar terms when it signed onto NAFTA, the Salinas,
Zedillo, Fox and Calderón administrations have increased exports of oil
when the US has so requested, for example, in the run up to the Iraq
invasion. Guaranteed access by the US to Mexico´s oil at bargain prices
may be a matter that has been agreed to in the SPP regulations. Meanwhile,
Mexico´s oil supplies are quickly being depleted, with some estimates
putting reserves at no greater than 15 years at current rates of
extraction.

A more recent example has to do with increased levels of pesticides that
Canadians will soon have in their foods, when tolerances for residues are
"harmonized" to US standards by SPP regulations.

8. What implications does the SPP have for indigenous or first-nation
peoples?

The SPP weakens the rights of first nations to inhabit and work their
lands. In the case of Mexico, the country´s governments (since the times
of President Miguel de la Madrid, 1982 - 1988) have tried to weaken any
"limitation" on private investment. The right of the indigenous people to
establish autonomous areas and decide on the use of natural resources
located on their lands, recognized by the ILO´s 169 Convention (see
Article 15), is an aspect that the corporations would like to curtail. The
same goes for laws and norms that have been established to protect the
environment. We suspect that corporations are reaching agreements with
governments within the SPP framework that first weaken and then eliminate
these protections and rights. An important consequence of these changes is
the intensification of indigenous communities´ incentives to emigrate from
their lands.

9. What is the most egregious aspect of this new Partnership?

Undoubtedly, it is the total contempt that the forces behind the SPP have
for ordinary citizens and their right to decide on how a country is run.
The SPP is profoundly undemocratic. Citizens´ control is being weakened
and turned over to a minority, e.g., a few people and corporations who are
using greater doses of violence to accumulate capital. Basic principles
are under threat: a country´s wealth should be used to address and solve
problems related to education, health, housing, infrastructure etc. The
tendency now, however, as expressed in agreements such as the SPP, is the
opposite: wealth is being concentrated in a few hands and the people are
experiencing ever-greater poverty and deteriorating services and
infrastructure, and are being forced to abandon their areas of origin in
search for opportunities to make a decent living.

10. How does the SPP relate to the summits held between the presidents of
Mexico and the United States and the prime minister of Canada?

Since the SPP began in 2005, the three chief executives have gathered
several times. The last summit occurred on August 20 - 21, 2007, and
featured talks between illegitimate presidents Calderón and Bush and Prime
Minister Harper (all neo-cons) in the small town of Montebello, province
of Québec. Little information on the summit surfaced in the US press (the
New York Times dismissed the significance of the summit, see "No
Breakthrough at Canada Talks", 22 Aug 2007, and "Bush´s Talks with
Neighbors Overshadowed by Storm", 21 Aug 2007). In the Mexican and
Canadian press, and in activist circles, it was widely expected that the
chief executives would sign additional SPP regulations.

Another tri-national summit is planned for April 21-22, 2008, in New
Orleans, Louisiana.

11. How are these regulations drafted and approved?

In most cases the enforcement of regulations requires just the chief
executives´ signatures. It is actually corporate lawyers who draft the
language of the regulations, especially those having to do with trade, in
consultation with selected government officials and academics. This
procedure overturns the traditional roles played by governments and
corporations and in essence constitutes the privatization of what had
traditionally been considered a public prerogative.

This is not a minor change. It bespeaks the growing corporate control of
government, and the use of government to further corporate interests.

12. Do we have access to the documents signed by the executive branch?

No, SPP documents have not been released for public scrutiny. Civil
society is not consulted before the signing ceremony nor is full
disclosure practiced once the summits end.

We believe that the executives opted for signing regulations because, 14
years after NAFTA began in 1994, civil society throughout the region is
better organized, informed, networked and mobilized. Further, first-hand
experience with NAFTA has exposed the lies that were touted to sell the
"virtues" of the trade agreement. For example, job creation has actually
slowed in Mexico and NAFTA-induced job creation in the US and Canada has
been modest at best; peoples´ living standards have not risen; and the gap
between Mexico and its more-developed neighbors in terms of salaries and
per-capita income has actually widened. Within Mexico differences between
the poorer states in the south and better-off states in the North have
deepened.

If full disclosure existed, civil society would be ill disposed to accept
a "deepening" of NAFTA such as the SPP. There might be large-scale
mobilization and protests. Approval in the legislatures might not be
forthcoming. The chief executives know this and in anticipation are
signing decrees that circumvent watchdog functions by civil society and
the legislatures.

13. The "security" aspect of the SPP is intriguing. Do our countries
really have a security problem?

No, or at least not to the extent we´ve been told. We believe that any
security concerns that may exist are the result of grossly misguided US
foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. In any event, the US and
allied countries took advantage of the events that transpired on Sept. 11,
2001 and created an ambiance of fear in order to increase military budgets
and repression.

Under the SPP, the three participating countries have agreed on a security
apparatus that includes a greater control on flows of people and goods,
response to threats such as terrorism, organized crime, the trafficking of
people and the contraband of goods. All this implies greater coordination
among intelligence services and greater repression to control "external
and internal threats".

Evidently any social protest, for example, grassroots protests last year
in Oaxaca or Atenco, Mexico, might be classified by the government as an
"internal threat", or even "terrorism". In fact, the Attorney General of
the state of Oaxaca declared that the APPO (Popular Assembly of the People
of Oaxaca) is a "violent group" that has committed crimes "called
terrorism" under the Federal Penal Code (La Jornada, November 10, 2006,
political section). Independent observers, such as the International Civil
Commission for Human Rights Observation, have said the opposite, by
copiously documenting the brutality of state repression against
community-based or non-partisan social movements
(see
http://cciodh.pangea.org/quinta/070120_inf_conclusiones_reco....

Again, is there a security threat? Probably so... for the region´s elites,
who fear a backlash (or a "blowback" to use Chalmer Johnson´s expression)
from increasingly disgruntled populations.

14. What does this new Partnership have to do with prosperity?

Nothing. The word has been included for publicity purposes given worsening
economic conditions for the majority of the region´s population. The SPP
will bring prosperity to the multinational corporations, their major
shareholders and those in power who are colluding with the former.

Formally, there is a "prosperity agenda" that covers diverse subjects,
such as easing restrictions on business, health measures, phytosanitary
measures, financial services, electronic business, complicated rules of
origin and many others. Large corporations have detected measures that are
missing from NAFTA which would facilitate cross-border business and
increase profits, at the expense of job creation and labor and
environmental protections. These aspects are now being approved with SPP
regulations.

The SPP omits reference to any social policies that might lead to greater
prosperity of the majority of the population of the three participating
countries.

15. Why is Mexico included in this type of partnership with two other
countries with much large economies?

The motives have never been strictly economic. Not even with NAFTA. And
now the security of the US has become a required reference point. US
military strategists have placed increased priority on protecting the US´s
land borders by including Canada and Mexico as "buffer zones" in the event
of "terrorist attacks". Mexico and Canada will be required to take
measures, dictated by the US, to become as "secure" as the US itself. In
Canada the new orientation is well advanced. In Mexico it will take
longer, but the objective is clear. Furthermore, under the SPP Mexico has
become a "test-tube" nation, for experimentation in the context of future
US plans for the region.

16. Mexico-an experiment? What for?

It seems likely that US plans go beyond integrating Mexico and Canada into
its area of control and influence. We believe that the US wishes to
control the Americas for the reasons mentioned in the response to question
5. As an example of US intentions, up to 2005, the US sought to extend
"free trade" to the entire continent at a single go by means of the FTAA
(Free Trade Area of the Americas). The initiative backfired and was
dropped when grassroots protests erupted throughout the Americas and
left-leaning governments, opposed to US global interests, were elected in
South America.

When the FTAA was derailed in 2005, the US took a slower approach in
matters related to trade in the Americas. It continued making strides
towards its goal of a "free trade Americas" by signing treaties with
individual countries or with several countries at a time in Central
America. Mexico is just the first step in a much wider project that the US
will be pushing forward in the next few decades for the integration of the
entire American continent in matters of trade and other important issues
that the US would like to see "bundled". In this sense Mexico´s
participation in the SPP is an experiment in how to integrate a developing
country in an alliance with "developed" countries such as the US and
Canada.

Let´s explain further. The asymmetries separating Mexico and its northern
neighbors are many. Mexico´s deep and widening poverty and the reduced
size of its economy vis-à-vis the US are obvious asymmetries, but there
are other equally important, but less visible, differences that will
undoubtedly be conflictive and will require resolution. For example, the
difference in legal frameworks: Canada and the US operate under a legal
system that derives from Anglo-Saxon common law, while Mexico works with a
tradition of Roman law inherited from Spain. Also, Mexican democracy is
still in its birth pangs and there is an intense struggle by the majority
of the population to win a greater voice in national affairs through the
organization of independent, democratic, social movements.

As US strategists ponder how best to integrate the continent, it makes

sense to grapple first with one country, and the obvious candidate is
Mexico, in order to generate a series of experiences that will set a
precedent when the rest of the continent and the Caribbean are
incorporated. Analyzing the SPP back in 2005, Professor John
Saxe-Fernández of Mexico´s National Autonomous University wrote, "The goal
is to use Mexico as a battering ram to push forward ´vertical integration´
of Latin America to the [United States] in trade, finance, monetary and
geopolitical aspects" (La Jornada, 28-Mar-05).

In Europe, the better-off countries had to make certain adjustments when
poorer countries were integrated into the European Union. A certain
standardization of procedures occurred. The better-off countries also
disbursed enormous sums of money in an effort to "level the playing field"
in education, health, housing, etc., and to solve the inevitable problems
that were sure to arise, for example, retraining workers laid off from
their jobs and creating a continent-wide labor market that would
accommodate migration among European partners.

In contrast, the US wants a different type of integration. The US
government wishes to give major corporations unfettered access to markets,
while turning a blind eye to the social consequences of creating "modern,
globalized economies" in its geostrategic neighborhood. The most immediate
of these changes is the creation of an enormous "surplus labor army" as
small businesses, which provide the largest share of jobs in the economy,
fold when facing competition from the likes of Wal-Mart and Cargill. A
responsible policy would provide funds or other opportunities to somewhat
compensate the losers of globalization. There is absolutely no political
support in the US for this type of foreign economic policy now, nor can we
foresee a time when there will be. So integration will proceed by accords
such as the SPP to be tested initially in Mexico. (Actually it is
difficult to talk of "integration" per se, because the US will retain its
hegemony in all crucial matters. Absorption might be a more appropriate
term).

In a recent development, the US has drafted plans that call for transfers
of up to a billion dollars into Mexico. The funds are not for social
programs and local economic development projects (which could provide
alternatives to migration, the informal economy or crime), but for a
supposed "war against drugs". This initiative parallels the rationale used
to channel billions of dollars into Colombia, to increase that country´s
arsenal in its war against domestic insurgencies. (See "The Lost War", by
Misha Glenny, The Washington Post, 19 August 2007).

This is a long-range task. We predict that the US will be pushing forward
its corporate and security-led agenda through the SPP and its offshoots
for the next several decades.

17. Does the SPP have anything to say about Mexican migration northward?

Except for references to "intelligent borders" that will make it easier
and quicker for "low-risk persons" to cross border checkpoints, the SPP
apparently overlooks migration issues. This mirrors the "NAFTA credo":
goods, services, capital and high-level corporate executives can cross
borders with increasing ease. Conversely, common folks, those that need to
emigrate to survive because they cannot find work or a decent salary, are
"high-risk persons" for the US government. Therefore they will continue to
face difficulties as undocumented migrants, risking their lives by
crossing deserts or mountains in search of a livelihood.

Free-trade policies, such as those promoted by NAFTA, have been an
unmitigated disaster for the vast majority of Mexicans. The World Bank
confirms that Mexico has expelled more of its people than any other
country, including China and India, whose populations are 12 and 10 times
greater than Mexico´s.

The SPP contains no measures that recognize the dependence of the US and
Canadian economies on Mexican immigrant labor and facilitate the transit
of these workers. Thus a large and vulnerable labor pool will continue to
exist, willing to accept low wages for risky jobs, depending on negligible
labor rights, and eternally fearing abuse and deportation.

18. Is the increased militarization of Mexico´s southern border part of
these accords?

Undoubtedly, but today there is no region that is exempt from creeping
militarization. Currently the southeast of Mexico has become a seal,
especially for Central Americans, but also for other foreigners and even a
few Mexicans. Mexico´s ability to control its southern border is a crucial
element within the SPP, but crackdowns on foreigners entering from
Guatemala or Belize have had a poor record. Gross violations of human
rights occur daily. All security forces - the army, the National Migration
Institute, the Federal Preventive Police, the Beta Force (established
supposedly to "aid" immigrants in need), and the state police - have
declared "open season" on Central Americas and treat them as spoils of
war. With one hand they strip migrants of their belongings and receive
bribes with the other hand from polleros (immigrant traffickers) so that
their human cargo can continue their northward journey.

The SPP has, however, authorized a new type of border crossing. The United
States now has permission to cross the Mexican or Canadian border with its
armed forces virtually at will. Incursions could take place during "red
alerts" declared due to "terrorism" or suspicion of terrorism anywhere in
the three-country region.(1)

These plans and accords are now quite well advanced between the US and
Canada and we can reasonably suspect that similar agreements have been
reached with Mexico.

The US and Canada have established a Binational Planning Group that has
laid out "military contingency plans" to be enacted on both sides of the
US-Canadian border and include "a coordinated response to national
requests for military assistance [by civilian authorities we presume] in
cases of a threat, attack or civil emergency in the US or Canada. Should a
red alert be sounded, these so-called ´requests´ could lead to the
deployment of US troops or Special Forces in Canadian territory"
[information taken from globalresearch.ca].

19. Has there been any opposition to the SPP?

Definitely. As people and organizations find out about the SPP, a common
reaction is to ask how can we work together with others to expose and
oppose it. Fortunately, there are organizations and networks that are
undertaking diverse activities, such as information dissemination,
mobilization and protest against the SPP.

In Mexico, CIEPAC (Center for Economic and Political Investigation for
Community Action, www.ciepac.org), and the RMALC (Mexican Action Network
on Free Trade, www.rmalc.org.mx), actively disseminate information on the
SPP.

In the United States, ART (Alliance for Responsible Trade, www.art-us.org)
is a good place to look for information. Global Exchange is also
disseminating information on the effects of neoliberal policies such as
NAFTA and neocolonial schemes such as the SPP, www.globalexchange.org.

In Canada, Common Frontiers, www.commonfrontiers.ca and the RQIC (Quebec
Network on Continental Integration, www.rqic.alternatives.ca), have
excellent information, as does the Council of Canadians,
www.canadians.org.

Other allies in this struggle throughout the Americas have created a
region-wide network know as the HSA or Hemispheric Social Alliance
(http://asc-hsa.org).

20. What can we do to protest the SPP?

As always, the first step involves finding out about the SPP. All social
organizations, trade unions, producers´ cooperatives, etc. should
undertake information dissemination campaigns on the SPP, in order to
widen awareness of what it means, how it will (and is) affecting us and
how to work for better alternatives based on peoples´ needs.

After finding out more, we ought to put our greater awareness into action:
teach, organize, protest, struggle, demonstrate and mobilize against the
terrible effects of the SPP.

But becoming a full-time activist is just one option. Many folks, despite
how much they would like to do just that, have fears or other obligations
that keep them from dedicating the time and energy needed to join an
activist organization. But they can still do something, for example,
talking with family members, friends, neighbors, fellow community members
or colleagues, or holding informative events, even just a conversation
about the SPP, or passing along a relevant video. If you have finished
reading this booklet, don´t put it aside, pass it on to your family and
friends! Each of us can do something, however small it may be, to help
inform others about the SPP. And how the SPP fits into a greater
(capitalist) scheme of things.

Why should these important agreements be taken without complete
transparency? Why is it that a small group of elites and large
corporations find it necessary to hide SPP proceedings from public view?
It is up to us to ensure that our countries represent our interests, the
majority´s interests.