U.S. Congress blocks key transport initiative

Warns trilateral plan would open borders to 'alien invaders'

Kelly Patterson, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Monday, July 30, 2007

Just weeks before the Canadian, U.S. and Mexican leaders meet in Montebello, Que., to discuss the Security and Prosperity Partnership, U.S. legislators moved to block a key part of the trilateral trade initiative.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly last week to cut off funding for talks on all transportation issues related to the SPP, a controversial effort to harmonize the countries' economic and security protocols.

Legislators are concerned that crucial decisions affecting cross-border security, immigration and product safety are being made without congressional consultation.

"The (Bush) administration refuses to report back to Congress," Democrat Marcy Kaptur told the House. "They have been intransigent, they have been unresponsive and, frankly, they've been secretive."

But Republican Congressman Joe Knollenberg warned that cutting SPP funding would "put all of the U.S.-Canada transportation initiatives to an end," including years of improvements to the critical Detroit-Windsor border crossing.

Representatives voted 362-63 in favour of the budget amendment, put forward jointly by Ms. Kaptur and Republican Duncan Hunter. The amendment will now go to the U.S. Senate for debate.

NDP MP Peter Julian warns that similar debates are arising north of the border.

"This is a real wake-up call for (Prime Minister) Stephen Harper," he said. "The SPP is an unacceptable, closed-door process. ... There is a need for a real public consultation."

Transportation talks have become a hot-button issue in the U.S., where critics fear secret negotiations are aimed at building a "NAFTA Superhighway" linking the three nations.

Many on the extreme right fear such a highway would spell the end of the U.S., as "alien invaders" swarm across the border from Mexico. But moderates have also expressed concerns such a transport corridor would overwhelm customs and immigration staff.

In a statement this week, Ms. Kaptur said the 12-lane highway "is already under construction in Texas." The network would divert incoming Asian goods from bustling California ports to Mexican ports, jeopardizing American jobs, she warned. It would also fast-track overseas products into the U.S. "without adequate safety provisions and inspection," she charges.

While some private ventures and state governments have described ongoing projects as "NAFTA Corridors," the federal government is not involved, according to the U.S. government website on the SPP.

"The NAFTA Superhighway simply does not exist," says Frank Conde of North America's SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), a U.S.-based non-profit group that aims to improve an already existing network of highways that link the three countries.

But Ms. Kaptur and other critics dismiss that argument as semantics, arguing that ongoing plans for the rapid expansion of many parts of that network amount to a superhighway.

One NASCO member, Kansas Southern Railway, also sits on the North American Competitiveness Council, an elite group of corporations formed to advise the three governments on the SPP.

Mr. Conde says the railroad, which operates in the U.S. and Mexico, does not share information on the SPP with NASCO. (Railroad officials were not available for comment at press time).

He adds that some SPP initiatives have made the border crossings safer. He points to the little-known e-manifest program, under which transport firms submit detailed information about their cargo, drivers and routes to a government database before approaching the border.

Cargoes or companies that may pose a risk are flagged in the system, so officials can zero in on trucks or drivers that may pose a risk; low-risk vehicles can pass through quickly.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2007

Global Backlash Against Globalization?

By: Patrick Wood, The August Review

For decades, global elitists have claimed special knowledge that they alone could solve the world’s problems if only we (the ignorant masses) would leave them alone to get on with it. It would create jobs and economic prosperity, they said. They promised peace and security. Truly, what’s not to like about their New World Order?

Imagine how shocked they were when Financial Times published the results of an FT/Harris poll (July 22, 2007) which showed almost universal disdain for the very policies that were supposed to save us. According to the FT article,

The depth of anti-globalization feeling in the FT/Harris poll, which surveyed more than 1,000 people online in each of the six countries, will dismay policy-makers and corporate executives. Their view that opening economies to freer trade is beneficial to poor and rich countries alike is not shared by the citizens of rich countries, regardless of how liberal their economic traditions.

Yet, their clever defense is already built into the FT title: “Globalization backlash in rich nations”.

That’s right, it’s only the selfish rich nations who are resisting globalization. And, we should slap more taxes on ourselves to teach ourselves a lesson.

But wait, does this mean that poor nations are embracing globalization?

Apparently, anti-globalization riots and protests in 3rd world countries aren’t taken into account. Nor does it seem to matter that communist and other brutal dictatorships don’t even allow dissent; remember that there are plenty of dictatorships involved with the global elite, including countries like communist China.

In the FT/Harris poll, the question was posed: “Do you think globalization is having a positive or negative effect in your country?”

Less than 20 percent of citizen respondents in the UK, France, Spain and the U.S. viewed it as having a positive effect. Germany and Italy were a bit higher.

Still, well over 50 percent of all respondents voted “No” to globalization.

Another shock to the pro-globalization elite is the overwhelming passage (362-63 on July 24, 2007) of the Duncan Hunter Amendment (H.R. 3074) to the Transportation Appropriations Act, “prohibiting the use of federal funds for participation in working groups under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, including the creation of the NAFTA Super Highway.”

“The proposed NAFTA Super Highway presents significant challenges to our nation’s security, the safety of vehicle motorists, and will likely drive down wages for American workers,” said Congressman Hunter. “Much like NAFTA, the super highway is designed to serve the interests of our trading partners and will lead to neither security nor prosperity.”

Congressman Duncan Hunter, also a presidential candidate, told his fellow congressional colleagues,

“This 12 lane highway, which is already under construction in Texas, will fast-track thousands of cargo containers across the U.S. without adequate security. These containers will move from Mexico, a country with a record of corruption and involvement in the drug trade, across a border that is already porous and insufficiently protected.

“Unfortunately, very little is known about the NAFTA Super Highway. This amendment will provide Congress the opportunity to exercise oversight of the highway, which remains a subject of question and uncertainty, and ensure that our safety and security will not be comprised in order to promote the business interests of our neighbors.”

Obviously, criticism of globalization in the U.S. is certainly not limited to citizens only.

What end-run will the global elite devise to counter these negative sentiments? Will they simply stiffen their necks even more and barge ahead in defiance of citizens and Congress alike?

If history is a guide, they will most likely dismiss all such criticisms as coming from ignorant people who don’t know any better in the first place.

Related video:

Call for more tax on rich


Hey! Security and Prosperity for WHO ..? The landlord is stealing YOUR apartment.

<<:>> <<:>> <<:>>