From NAFTA to

Some
elements of the Montebello Summit

By
Eduardo Dimas                                                                  Read Spanish Version

At the
end of the Summit of Montebello, in Canada, the presidents of the
United States, George Bush, and Mexico, Felipe Calderón, and
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper derided reports that hinted at
the creation of a superstate born of the union of the three
countries. They were right. That’s not the objective.

The
objective is less encompassing because neither the United States nor
Canada — First-World nations with high standards of living, members
of the Group of Eight and NATO — would benefit from a union of that
type with Mexico, a union that would open the borders to tens of
millions of Mexicans who live in poverty. 

On March
23, 2005, the top representatives of the three countries, meeting in
Waco, Texas, created the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North
America (SPPNA), which included issues such as security, energy,
biodiversity. It was an expansion of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) that took effect in January 1994.

The
initial idea came from Prof. Robert A. Pastor of American University
in Washington, D.C., and former chairman of the Carter Foundation. In
2001, Pastor published a book ("Toward a North American
Community") that was widely distributed and even was discussed
during a session of the U.S. Congress. 

Once the
SPPNA was enacted, entities were created in the three nations that
mainly represent business interests. Later, in March 2006, the three
leaders created the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC).

Participating
for the U.S. in the NACC are businesses that represent high
technology, armaments, energy, agriculture and pharmaceutics, and the
Council of Foreign Relations. For Canada, the Canadian Council of
Business Leaders. For Mexico, the Entrepreneurial Coordinating
Council, the Mexican Council of Businessmen, the Mexican Council of
Foreign Trade, and the Center for Economic Studies of the Private
Sector. As you see, the cream of the crop of the business worlds in
the three countries. 

In an
article published in La Jornada, a Mexican daily, analyst Roberto
González Amador, explained the recommendations of the
Competitiveness Council on the subject of energy:

"…to
strengthen trilateral cooperation in matters of energy distribution
across the borders … to allow Mexican corporations [the two
existing ones are state-owned] to sign extended contracts for the
purchase of electric power to U.S. producers … to liberalize trade,
storage and distribution of [oil] derivatives.

"This
recommendation would include the construction, possession and
operation of oil pipelines … [and] the separation of gas-related
actives not associated with PEMEX to build a state-run entity called
GASMEX. This intermediate initiative is consistent with the
long-range project of liberalizing the Mexican sector of
hydrocarbons."

Let us
remember that, in business jargon, the word "liberalization"
means privatization. For some time now, some officials of the Mexican
government, PEMEX and U.S. transnational corporations have been
making efforts to achieve the privatization of Mexican oil and the
production of electricity — an endeavor that is forbidden by the
Mexican Constitution.

To
Canada, which has maintained a Free-Trade Agreement with the U.S.
since 1988 and has seen its economic independence shrivel because of
the domination of U.S. transnationals, the Council’s decisions mean
placing at the disposal of the U.S. its deposits of oil and
bituminous land. In fact, it has done so already.

But it
is in the spheres of military power and national security where we
clearly see that the so-called "deep integration" does not
envision the creation of a superstate where the three countries would
be in conditions of equality. As stated by former Canadian Prime
Minister Roy McLaren, a liberal:

"An
accord aimed at harmonizing the standards of commerce, security or
defense would in effect oblige Canada and Mexico … to cede to the
United States all real power on international trade, international
investment, environmental norms, immigration and mostly foreign
policy, even on fiscal and monetary policies." ("Canada and
the American Partnership Project," in Rodrigue Tremblay’s book
"The New American Empire.")

In
addition, it is obvious that both Mexico and Canada would become
subordinate to the defense and national security mechanisms of the
United States. That way, McLaren points out, much of their foreign
policy would be set by the more powerful nation.

In other
words — and though this may sound unpleasant — a superpower with
two obedient satellites at its disposal. 

As often
happens in these SPPNA summits, no one learned what exactly was
discussed by the three leaders. We can only speculate. After three
years of meeting, of work by commissions, of the application of
measures issued by the Competitiveness Council, the time has not come
for new steps toward a total alliance.

Mexican
oil has not yet been privatized, nor has the generation of electric
power. In Canada, people are unhappy with the growing loss of
political and economic independence. Entrepreneurial sectors in that
country are suffering the consequences of the NAFTA, although not to
the same degree as Mexico.

However,
the topics of defense and national security (where the White House
has imposed its own vision to the other two governments) have
advanced substantially. It is evident that Canada, as a member of
NATO, is committed to the United States. 

Its
military forces are present in Afghanistan and Iraq. Canada is part
of the U.S. Northern Command and a forward post in the event of a
nuclear war. Its wide borders with the United States make Canada
particularly important to U.S. national security, in the wake of the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. 

The
border with Mexico is another area of concern for the White House.
The construction of the wall, intended to impede the passage of
illegal immigrants, is not enough for the sacrosanct national
security.

Recently,
there has been talk of a so-called Plan Mexico (reminiscent of Plan
Colombia), whose objective is to strengthen the defensive capacity of
the Mexican Army and the police for the purposes of the war on drug
trafficking and terrorism. And, although nothing has been said in
that regard, against the guerrilla movements that for many years have
proliferated in Mexican territory.

Needless
to say, if the armies and security organizations of the three
countries were to unite, their command would be in the hands of the
United States. It could not be otherwise. That way, the armies of
Canada and Mexico would probably have to participate in U.S.
aggressions against Third World countries. That’s not a very
promising future for the people of those nations.

When the
main world power (the United States) seeks an alliance with a
mid-size power (Canada) and a small power (Mexico), it does not do so
to improve the living conditions of its allies or to make them more
secure. It’s to place them at its service, either as a source for raw
materials, as a barrier against alleged or real enemies, or to use
them in its wars.

That
seems to be the true objective of the so-called "deep
integration," which some call the North American Partnership. If
I’m wrong, please forgive me.