Showing posts with label Council on Competitiveness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Council on Competitiveness. Show all posts

March 08, 2008

SPP Update

PREMEDITATED MERGER
Leaders push PR campaign for North American alliance
Business council members to confront and refute critics of trilateral agenda


Posted: March 06, 2008
9:30 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


The controversial Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, continues closed-door meetings with business leaders while the heads of state of the U.S., Mexico and Canada now openly urge them to launch a public relations campaign to counter growing criticism of the trilateral cooperative some fear is a step toward a North American Union.

The information is contained in an internal memo from Canada's Foreign Affairs and Internal Trade ministry, obtained by WND under an Access to Information Act request.

The text of the undated memo is an internal government summary of the third SPP summit meeting held Aug. 20-21, 2007, in Montebello Quebec.

The redacted memo does not disclose the author or the date the memo was written.

The first sentence of the memo makes clear, as WND previously reported, the North American Competitiveness Council, or NACC, was the only participant invited to meet behind closed doors with the SPP bureaucrats. The SPP consists of 20 working groups plus the attending cabinet officers from each country and the heads of state.

"Leaders had a successful meeting with the members of the NACC, which had been launched at the leader's meeting in Cancun in March 2006, to counsel governments on how they might enhance North American competitiveness," the memo begins.

The NACC is a largely secretive SPP advisory council of representatives of 30 North American corporations selected by the Chambers of Commerce in the three nations.

The NACC has issued no press releases disclosing specific recommendations made to the SPP trilateral working groups tasked with "integrating" and "harmonizing" administrative rules and regulations into a North American format.

Nor have any minutes of SPP meetings with NACC participants ever been made public.

The PR offensive is clearly discussed in the third paragraph of the internal memo, where following an initial redacted sentence, the paragraph discusses comments made by the three heads of state in the closed door discussions, noting, "He also urged NACC members to assist in confronting and refuting critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)."

The "He" in the sentence is not identified.

The fourth paragraph continues the PR theme: "In closing, all leaders expressed a desire for the NACC to play a role in articulating publicly the benefits of greater collaboration in North America."

Later, the memo admits, "Leaders discussed some of the difficulties of the SPP, including the lack of popular support and the failure of the public to understand the competitive challenges confronting North America."

After a redacted sentence, the memo continues, "Governments are faced with addressing the rapidly evolving competitive environment without fueling protectionism, when industry sectors face radical transformation."

The memo then documents a comment made by President Bush:

"In terms of building public support, President Bush suggested engaging the support of those who had benefited from NAFTA and from North American integration (including small business owners) to tell their stories and humanize the impressive results."

The document says, regarding import safety, "

President Bush underlined the importance of tackling the issue more broadly and showing that governments are ahead of this issue in order to prevent a trade protectionist backlash, especially against China."

Toward the end, the memo reinforces the public relations theme, emphasizing,

"NACC members should have a role in communicating the merits of North American collaboration, including by engaging their employees and unions."

Meanwhile, the SPP ministers and trilateral working groups continue to pursue a policy of secret, closed-door meetings, where the press and the public is not invited to participate or observe the process.

In a meeting that was virtually unreported in the U.S. and Canada, a SPP ministerial meeting Feb. 27-28 in Las Cabos, Mexico, was disclosed openly in the Mexico City newspaper La Jornada.

The report in La Jornada said Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez visited Mexico City prior to the Los Cabos meeting "to renegotiate NAFTA" by offering to Mexico that undisclosed U.S. corporations and the U.S. government are planning to put as much as $141 billion in new investments in Mexico under Mexico's National Infrastructure Project 2007-2012.

A press release on the U.S. Trade and Development Agency website published Feb 21 presented the agenda for a Feb. 26-28 meeting in Mexico City at which Secretary Gutierrez planned to announce USTDA grants totaling more than $1.7 million were being made "to promote the development of transportation, energy and environmental projects under Mexico's National Infrastructure Program (NIP)."

A separate press release on the USTDA website documented that Mexico's National Infrastructure Program, launched by President Calderon in July 2007, was intended to create $141 billion in new infrastructure investment opportunities for U.S. firms by 2012.

An announcement posted on the homepage of the Department of Commerce's SPP website Feb. 28 confirmed Gutierrez and Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff traveled to Las Cabos to meet with their Mexican and Canadian counterparts in a ministerial meeting, preparing for the fourth SPP annual summit meeting scheduled for New Orleans April 21-22.

The SPP press release also confirmed the NACC attended the Los Cabos closed-door ministerial meeting.

Several other important points were disclosed in the Foreign Affairs and Internal Trade document obtained under the Access to Information Act request.

The document confirmed a much-rumored concern that the Harper government intended to downplay the SPP summits, as part of a strategy to defuse the intense criticism the effort has received from the political left in Canada.

"Prime Minister Harper described the SPP as a worthwhile project driving numerous low-profile, but important initiatives," the documents noted under the heading, "SPP Management."

The document further disclosed Harper's recommendation that each government appoint a single lead minister with overall responsibility for managing the trilateral bureaucrats involved in the 20 SPP working groups.

The commerce minister in each country, or "prosperity minister" as identified by the document, was tasked with this responsibility.

Until the document had come to light, the three governments had not given a clear explanation of the tasks or areas of responsibilities of each of the three ministers assigned in the U.S., Canada and Mexico to SPP.

Now, it appears the foreign minister representative, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the United States and her counterparts in Mexico and Canada, represent the top state-level official among the three, a designation that clearly places the SPP within the top foreign policy diplomatic level in each country.

Commerce Secretary Gutierrez and his counterparts would be considered the "SPP Prosperity Ministers," while Secretary Chertoff and his counterparts would be considered the "SPP Security Ministers," with overall management of the SPP coming under the "Prosperity Ministers" sphere.

Also, the document disclosed President Bush's continuing determination to favor only a virtual fence, not the placement of a physical fence, along the U.S. border with Mexico.

"President Bush outlined his vision of the border, with a strong emphasis on the use of technology," the document stressed.

As WND previously reported, an amendment submitted by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, gutted the Secure Fence Act of 2006 by leaving the building of a 700-mile double-layer fence along the border with Mexico up to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security and Chertoff.

WND has also reported Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., author of the fencing provisions of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, has introduced new legislation in the House of Representatives to put back the requirement of constructing double-layered fencing along the Mexican border within six months.


February 12, 2008

Heather Reisman watch. ACT NOW

PLEASE PHONE OR WRITE:

Reisman-Sponsored Haifa/UW Exchange Program


Many thanks to the Students for Palestinian Rights at the University of Waterloo for quickly addressing this problem. Now we need to step in and lend our support, especially if you are a UW alumni.
Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz of Chapters Indigo have made a $500,000. donation to the University of Waterloo to pay for a tuition-free student exchange program between Haifa University and the University of Waterloo. To give Waterloo students a true picture of what is happening in Palestine/Israel SFPR has asked that the exchange also include time at Birzeit University and Palestinian areas. Anne Pidduck the co-coordinator of the program said she is doubtful that tours of the OT will be offered since it's a High Risk area. (Plus the road to Birzeit has recently been blocked.)
Personally, I think UW should return the donation and not participate in this exchange. It will be used as a propaganda effort with far reaching consequences. Reisman and Schwartz are grooming UW students to be pro-Israel for when they graduate and take up influential positions in Canada. A similar case in point - the Ontario Chiefs of police and other senior officials who participated in a police trip to Israel are now in powerful positions such as most of the executive of the Ontario Chiefs of Police Association and head of the OPP etc.
Please see the full story of the Haifa/UW exchange program, information links and phone numbers in the email BELOW.
In addition, you may also wish to contact the

president of the University of Waterloo,
David L. Johnston at 519-888-4400,
president@uwaterloo.ca ,
University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1 http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infopres/HTML/president.html .
In order to win people over to our concerns, please state your case logically and politely. Overly emotional or rude calls can alienate the people we are trying to educate.
Thanks.

Nours Arab wrote:
To: Nidah@yahoogroups.com
CC: "Rami Alhamad" <hmd.rami@gmail.com>,
"Susan Howard-Azzeh" <susanha103@yahoo.ca>
From: "Nours Arab" <noursa@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:01:45 -0500
Subject: [Nidah] Concern Over Reisman-Sponsored Haifa/UofW Exchange Program

In early January, Students for Palestinian Rights (SFPR), a student club at the University of Waterloo (UW) noticed posters all around the university about a University of Waterloo-University of Haifa exchange program, which boasted that the term spent at Haifa would be tuition-free. Gerry Schwartz, CEO of the Onex Corporation, and Heather Reisman, CEO of Indigo Books and Music were covering the bill with a $500,000 donation. You can read more about this donation directly from the UWaterloo buletin: http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/2006/oct/03tu.html

As many of you may be aware, there are existing efforts to promote boycott of Indigo/Chapters/Coles because of previous stances/actions taken by the CEO couple. You can get more details about the boycott effort from the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid's Chapters Boycott website at http://www.caiaweb.org/indigoboycott. In short, Reisman and Schwartz are the founders of the Heseg Foundation, which provides scholarships to "lone" Israeli soldiers. You can see the Heseg Foundation here: http://www.heseg.com/.

Having learned about the Schwartz-Reisman-funded exchange program at the University of Waterloo, SFPR decided to distribute flyers about Israel's discriminatory policy, specifically in the education sector. These flyers were distributed outside the exchange program's information session. This was effectively a very peaceful and professional protest, which was covered by the university paper: http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2140

During this protest, SFPR was offered the opportunity to speak to UW administration. Two SFPR members met with Anne Pidduck, the UW Co-ordinator of the exchange program. SFPR was hoping to ensure that minimally the program does not act as a propaganda tool that gives a one-sided picture of Israel. After negotiations with the UW administration, UW expressed willingness to allow SFPR to co-host future information sessions to ensure that interested students are given a fuller picture of Israel and take that into consideration before participating in the program. It must be noted that the UW administration did not consult any student body before accepting this money. However, they appeared to have been expecting a response but having little concern about it. They placed us in this reactionary position as opposed to being included in the decision process.

SFPR would love to have the support of UW Alumni in contacting the University of Waterloo .

The contact info for people you may want to call and express your concern to regarding the exchange program donation are:

Martin Van Nierop

Communications & Public Affairs
+1 519-888-4881 or 519-888-4567 x84881

Anne Pidduck

School of Computer Science
+1 519-888-4567 x34662

January 27, 2008

SPP leaders on the State of the Union Address ..

Comment on the State of the Union Address and Energy Productivity from Leaders of the Energy Security, Innovation & Sustainability Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Shirley Ann Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (bio & pic) and Deborah Wince-Smith, president of the Council on Competitiveness and NASDAQ board member (bio & pic), are available to discuss energy, the economy, and global competitiveness in conjunction with the President’s State of the Union address, and in the midst of the Presidential primary and debate season. Below are a few topics that they would include in the State of the Union address, if they were advising the President’s speechwriters.

Dr. Jackson is co-chair -- along with James W. Owens, Chairman and CEO of Caterpillar, and D. Michael Langford, National President of the Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO -- of a major initiative -- the Energy Security, Innovation & Sustainability Initiative of the Council on Competitiveness -- which is convening leaders in business, academe, and labor to craft an agenda to enhance U.S. competitiveness and global energy security. She will be co-chairing a meeting of this Initiative Monday in Washington, D.C., with some 25 other CEOs involved in the initiative, and interviews with Dr. Jackson and Ms. Wince-Smith may be scheduled in person or by telephone.

To arrange interviews, please contact Patricia Charles at (440) 506-9564 or patricia@kelleycampaigns.com. For more information, see www.compete.org/esis.

Positioning the U.S. for Economic Prosperity through Energy Productivity

Energy security presents extraordinary economic challenges, but also offers extraordinary economic opportunities that the United States must position itself to capitalize on. Other nations have committed to ambitious energy policies, innovation investments and energy use targets. The U.S. is a global laggard in energy productivity – a measurement of the output and quality of goods and services created per unit of energy – a trend that needs to be reversed if we are to maintain our economic competitiveness. Under the auspices of the Council on Competitiveness, a coalition of business, university and labor leaders have joined together to address U.S. energy security and competitiveness by developing an energy roadmap focusing on (1) economic gains through innovation, (2) economic gains through greater energy efficiencies, and (3) economic gains through workforce development.

Investing in Energy Innovation -- Reversing the Decline in R&D

The U.S. must begin to fund research and development at a greater level and dedicate resources to increasing our energy efficiency. For more than 25 years, there has been a steady decline in public investment in energy-related research and development in the United States. Between 1978 and 2005, the U.S. Department of Energy budget for energy R&D dropped by more than 85 percent. Budgetary support has fallen short in other ways, as well. For example, the America Competes Act -- designed to promote innovation -- was enacted and signed into law with strong bipartisan support, yet was underfunded in the current federal budget.

Meanwhile, worldwide investment capital flowing into sustainable energies increased from $28 billion in 2004 to $71 billion in 2006. We cannot continue to fall behind other nations in R&D investment, in the commercialization and manufacturing of new energy technologies, and in workforce development. These trends must be reversed.

Creating the Right Environment for Energy Innovation

The U.S. must strengthen its global economic competitiveness by adopting innovative solutions to our energy needs by creating the right environment to unleash market forces. However, many existing regulatory policies at the federal, state, and local levels actually create disincentives for businesses to increase energy efficiency and productivity. Federal inaction has prompted states and regions to devise regulations and policies to act as market drivers to stimulate energy investment. That is a good start, but signals from the federal government are essential for a coherent policy which allows businesses to do what they do best -- invest, drive innovation and create new jobs and industries.

ABOUT THE COUNCIL ON COMPETITIVENESS -- The Council on Competitiveness is the only group of corporate CEOs, university presidents and labor leaders committed to the future prosperity of all Americans and enhanced U.S. competitiveness in the global economy through the creation of high-value economic activity in the United States.

ShareThis