Of course what they should do is simply to drop all trade restrictions between the three countries.
That would be best for all 400 million of us. Harry ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 (818) 352-4141 ****************************** From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 7:12 AM To: futurework Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Where is this taking us? How worried should we be about the SPP? According to Common Frontiers Canada, it puts CEOs from Canadian, American and Mexican transnational companies at the center of decision-making via SPP sanctioned bodies like the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) and the North American Energy Working Group (NAEWG). Common Frontiers says "This exclusive access to governments for CEOs is not only undemocratic; it also allows them to promote their corporations interests at the expense of the publics interest." I've abreviated the following. To read the full version, go to <http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5152> http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5152 . Ed _____ Three Amigos Summit By Manuel Pérez Rocha and Sarah Anderson Foreign Policy in Focus Tuesday 15 April 2008 President George W. Bush will soon host what has become an annual "Three Amigos Summit." The leaders of Mexico, the United States, and Canada will be gathering in New Orleans on April 21 and 22. What do you suppose is on the agenda? A rational response to immigration, perhaps? A thoughtful renegotiation of the unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement? Lessons from Canada's affordable medicines program? No. No. And no. Rather than putting their heads together around pressing issues such as these, the three leaders will be advancing a so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). And while that may sound well and good, this initiative, begun in 2005, is unlikely to produce either security or prosperity. That's because the partnership is only with big business. The chief executives of Wal-Mart, Chevron, and 28 other large corporations are in on the closed-door negotiations, while members of Congress, journalists, and ordinary citizens are excluded. And the secrecy is not just around the presidential summits, but also the meetings of about 20 SPP working groups that carry on negotiations over the course of the year. What's on the table? Not much is public, but we do know that the executive powers of the three countries are hammering out regulatory changes that they claim do not require legislative approval. And given who's in the room, it's a safe bet that these changes will favor narrow corporate interests over the public good. The official corporate advisory body, called the North American Competitive Council (NACC), made 51 proposals to the SPP negotiators last year on issues as varied as taxation and patent rights. The NACC later boasted that "all three of our governments have committed themselves to taking action on many of our recommendations." Bad on Process and Substance In essence, the SPP represents the privatization of policymaking. And so it's not surprising that on top of the outrageously anti-democratic process, there are also strong reasons to be concerned about the substance of SPP decisions. Here are just a few: First, at a time when the Democratic presidential candidates have kicked up a long overdue debate over NAFTA, the SPP would actually expand this flawed policy. Second, the SPP could exacerbate tensions over energy resources and deepen our dependence on fossil fuels. Under the guise of a "North American integrated energy market," there is evidence that the U.S. government and corporations are aiming to gain greater control over its neighbors' resources. Third, the SPP talks are aimed at expanding the militarized U.S. security perimeter to all of North America, with disturbing implications for civil liberties. -------- Manuel Pérez Rocha is an Associate Fellow and Sarah Anderson is the Global Economy Project Director at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC. They are both Foreign Policy In Focus contributors.
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
