Canadian and US Green Parties blast secretive NAFTA-Plus trade-security deal
WASHINGTON, DC/OTTAWA, ONT. — Green Party leaders in Canada and the US are alerting their respective parties and the public about the ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America’ (SPP), a secretive deal between President Bush (US), Prime Minister Harper (Canada), and President Calderón (Mexico).
Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May stated, “The SPP is integrating the military, security, trade, economic, regulatory, and foreign polices of Canada, the US, and Mexico without public input or Parliamentary or Congressional scrutiny. The threat of widespread surveillance of citizens, greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands development and ’super-corridors,’ increased fossil fuel dependence, privatization of water, erosion of food safety and environmental regulations, and expanded corporate power at the expense of economic stability for working people — these are some of the reasons we oppose the SPP.”
North American Green Parties are calling for transnational opposition, beginning with a ‘Counter Summit’ teach-in and strategy session August 20 in Ottawa to coincide with a meeting of the leaders of Canada, the US, and Mexico at the third annual summit in Montebello in nearby Quebec. The Green Party of the United States has endorsed the Counter Summit and will send representatives. Greens will also participate in civil society opposition to the Montebello Summit, with two days of activites planned for August 19 and 20.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I have some issues with this ‘Counter-SPP summit’.
As someone who knows someone who has worked on SPP, I ‘d say there are too many misconceptions and too much fear-mongering around the SPP. It’s no more than a forum to discuss potential collaboration on things like smoother border proceedings (a challenge since the 9/11 events) and issues around the immigration, work permits, basically the human interest side of trade within the NAFTA countries. There is a reason why the ’summit’ is behind the closed doors; it’s informal, there is not much of a set agenda, and it’s a low-key summer event when all these power players don’t have packed calendars. Basically, it’s an opportunity to discuss some fairly dry and technical issues and try to make it somewhat palatable and fun (Montebello is a nice place).
I am far more concerned about things like the mounting US debt, continued problems with illegal immigration (should anyone be considered ‘illegal’ these days?) and stories about corruption and cover-up within the RCMP. The security&prosperity partnership is something that the Americans are backing, but somewhat gingerly..it’s more of a Canadian and Mexican business initiative to make trade with the US easier than it is. America is still protectionist in a number of ways. We are very, very far from any kind of a relationship like the EU…
The reason why the Greens have jumped on the ‘let’s bash the SPP’ bandwagon is that it is a slow news period and also because we have now migrated squarely into the NDP territory as far as foreign policy is concerned. I personally don’t like it and don’t see the need to pull a ‘Jack Layton lite’ on this one.
August 17th, 2007 at 11:20 am
My concern is the thinking behind who is being brought to the table on this and upon what principles these decisions are being made.
Ask your friend, who is at the table and who is not?
August 17th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Good question - who’s at the table?
The last two summits on SPP had several large businesses and also heads of various industry associations, so people in position to speak on behalf of big commercial interests. Also, there are ministers, former ministers, think-tank kind of people, plus the hosting three heads of state (who, I suspect, have minor roles to play other than ‘headline’ the event and help direct traffic).
Reason why no left-leaning organization likes these SPP events is because they have a strongly corporate flavour to them. There is no big union presence. If the unions were at the table, these same critics would be applauding or tacitly acknowledging that it’s an important process. Without the unions, though…the work of the devil!
There are other, even more informal ‘meetings of the powerful’. With far less apparent legitimacy than the SPPP meetings. You know about the annual event where the Queen gets together with current and former Prime Ministers of various countries (mostly European countries), plus some big-time entrepreneurs (think Richard Branson or Bill Gates calibre), bankers and heads of transnational foundations? It has a German-sounding name I can’t remember. It’s called the Club of Heidelberg or something like that…
John J thinks it’s a masonic event. I think it’s just another opportunity for the truly powerful people to make acquaintance and reassure each other than no one is doing anything too crazy. And, hey, some of them might be masons or whatever. I don’t care.
I don’t want you to think that I don’t have any concerns or issues with the SPP process. I do have some. But I also have a hunch that picking on this is picking the wrong target if you want to appeal to average, middle class voters or even sway some of those soft Conservatives to vote Green.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:22 am
You don’t have to be left-of-center politically to be concerned about these types of meetings. One of the alleged “business interests” that comes up often at these types of meetings is so-called “Intellectual Property” (See: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_Debate why I don’t even agree with that term). The United States (supported by both political parties) has taken on a belief system that will be extremely harmful to their economy, trading off other sectors (including manufacturing) for some mythical royalty-focused “Intellectual Property Economy” that will never happen. Look at the importance they have put PCT (Patents, Copyright, Trademarks and other related laws) in recent bilateral and multilateral negotiations, and you’ll see what I mean.
How Hollywood, Congress, And DRM Are Beating Up The American Economy http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4008
As more of the world moves to more modern methods of production, distribution and funding of knowledge and creativity that harnesses the fact that these intangibles have a zero marginal cost to the producer, the economies that took the US direction will be failing. While as a Canadian I don’t have influence on the US government, I want to make sure that Canada doesn’t go down with that sinking ship.
Note: The primary reason I got involved with the Digital Copyright debate was to protect the property rights of Information Technology owners. Can’t get a more traditionally “conservative” form of activism than the protection of property rights, in this case protecting against the government revoking these rights to protect the junk-science beliefs of organizations seeking to protect antiquated business models.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/31/comment.drm
August 20th, 2007 at 8:03 am
I agree with you on the intellectual property concerns. In my time with the House of Commons, I saw how slowly nations moved on the issue of generic HIV drugs (to the Third World)…there is a whole structure of ensuring that the big pharmacuticals and other companies profit from their product, rather than help release a product that could be beneficial to humanity. I guess it’s primarily a business and the intellectual property aspect of it dominates the reasoning, at least from a legal angle…and it is not a progressive business.
But, to be fair to the SPP, look at what the protesters and some of our own politicians are saying - and how hypocritical it sounds. Stephane Dion was busy denouncing SPP, yet it is originally a Liberal (Paul Martin) initiative. If Canada had a Liberal, as opposed to Conservative, government, the government of the day would still be backing the SPP and participating in parts of it. The sheer fact that the Liberals are now in opposition has them playing a different tune. No other rhyme and reason, other tahn wanting to distinguish themsleves.
The people who were in Ottawa yesterday, protesting, well, they were protesting a whole bunch of things which mostly had no direct correlation with SPP. It’s the same people who protest almost anything, anywhere, and are probably on Maude Barlow’s speed-dial.
It’s a lifestyle. I am just calling it the way I see it.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Great post, Jan!
I am hoping to interview Elizabeth May regarding her opposition to SPP. I think that should clarify and focus the problems with the SPP process and its potential outcomes.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Here is some more information on SPP:
A presentation by Dr Janet Eaton to the Green Party of the United States:
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/documents/deeper_look_spp/dr_janet_eaton