Task Force on the Future of North America
Posted by Moonage on 22 May 2005 | Tagged as: International Politics
My buddy Stormwarning posted this on The Motley Fool. I liked it so much I stole it ( again ). Here it is:
The Council on Foreign Relations is a very reputable and accepted website for accurate and objective information. It should also be noted (by any that care, that Steven Flynn. a member of CFR’s National Security Board is the Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, and one of the authors of the Hart-Rudman Reports that predicted the attacks on September 11th, 2001.
Task Force on the Future of North America Proposes Roadmap to Security To cope with North America’s vulnerability to terrorist and criminal threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home, the Council on Foreign Relations’ tri-national Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries. In a press release announcing the proposed roadmap, the Task Force applauds the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" issued in March by the heads of Canada, Mexico, and the United States but proposes what they are calling "a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and recommendations for achieving it."
To ensure a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America, the Task Force proposes a number of specific measures:
Make North America safer:
* Establish a common security perimeter by 2010.
* Develop a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers.
* Develop a unified border action plan and expand border customs facilities.Create a single economic space
Spread benefits more evenly
Institutionalize the partnership
Building a North American Community Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America
(its only 59 pages long)
…WHAT WE FACE Our countries face three common challenges: Shared security threats. Over the last decade, terrorist and criminal activity has underscored North America’s vulnerability. All of the 9/11 terrorists succeeded in entering the United States directly from outside North America, but the 1999 arrest of a person trying to cross the Canadian-U.S. border as part of a plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport shows that terrorists may also try to gain access to the United States through Canada and Mexico. This person was found to have cased Canadian targets as well, and al-Qaeda has publicly listed Canada as one of its prime targets along with the United States.Failure to secure the external borders of North America will inhibit the legitimate movement of people and goods within the continent. After the 9/11 attacks, delays at the Canadian-U.S. border prompted parts shortages in both countries, costing manufacturers millions of dollars an hour. Trade across the Mexican-U.S. border also suffered in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, which hindered U.S. economic growth. Continent-wide consequences mean that Canada and Mexico have an overriding commercial interest in increasing North American security, apart from any other considerations. In addition, future terrorist assaults could target critical infrastructure or sites in any of the three countries.
Beyond terrorism, all three countries must deal with a persistent flow of undocumented immigrants. International criminal activity also poses a continuing threat to public safety in the region, including drug- and gang-related violence along the Mexican-U.S. frontier. These cross-border threats cannot be adequately addressed by any one government alone.
Failure to address security issues will ultimately undermine gains on other matters. In the North American context, failure to collaborate effectively to address security issues will have a direct impact on commercial relationships as well as on our freedoms and quality of life.
Shared challenges to our economic growth and development. NAFTA has dramatically enhanced our ability to make better use of the abundant resources of our three countries, and thus made an important contribution to economic growth within North America. Over the last decade, however, our economies have faced growing challenges in increasingly competitive and globalized world markets. We need to do more to ensure that our policies provide our firms and workers with a fair and unfettered basis to meet the challenges of global competition. Unwieldy North American rules of origin, increasing congestion at our ports of entry, and regulatory differences among our three countries raise costs instead of reducing them. Trade in certain sectors€such as natural resources, agriculture, and energy€remains far from free, and disputes in these areas have been a source of disagreement among our countries. Furthermore, the NAFTA partners have been unable to resolve a number of important trade and investment disputes, which has created continuing tension in our commercial relationships.
Leaders in our three countries have acknowledged these challenges and discussed a wide range of responses during the 2005 Texas summit. Those involving changes in formal trade agreements will of necessity take time to negotiate and ratify. However, in other areas, notably regulatory cooperation and the expansion of transborder activities in critical sectors such as transportation and financial services, there is a shared recognition that the three countries can and should act quickly in ways that would make a real difference in improving the competitiveness of firms and individuals in North America.
Shared challenge of uneven economic development. A fast lane to development is crucial for Mexico to contribute to the security of the entire region. Mexico’s development has failed to prevent deep disparities between different regions of the country, and particularly between remote regions and those better connected to international markets. Northern states have grown ten times faster than those in the center and south of the country. Lack of economic opportunity encourages unauthorized migration, and has been found to be associated with corruption, drug trafficking, violence, and human suffering. Improvements in human capital and physical infrastructure in Mexico, particularly in the center and south of the country, would knit these regions more firmly into the North American economy and are in the economic and security interest of all three countries.
Leaders in our three countries have acknowledged these problems and indicated their support for a number of promising measures, including immigration reform, but there remains considerable scope for more individual, bilateral, and joint efforts to address development needs…
==============
Stormwarning- …..the Statue of Liberty reference had nothing to do with immigration, legal or otherwise, but that America remains open to people of all faiths and origins who wish to remain in touch with their heritage while adopting the United States of America as their new homeland.
And BTW, philosophically, I would deport anyone caught who has entered this country illegally.
Although Storm minimizes the content by suggesting one of the articles is only 59 pages, there is a TON of content in this topic. I would love to delve into each of these topics individually, and probably will through my interest in the legislative process, but I could blog for eternity and not cover it all as I would like. I would love some contributions from people out there.
2 Comments »
on 23 May 2005 at 4:30 pm 1.StormWarning
said …
Actually, I wasn’t minimizing the 59 pages at all. But I actually did start
to go through it and made some initial comments (which of course, due to the
"depth" of the TMF venue, were largely ignored despite their implications).
Having said that I believe that some of the implications of the CFR Report are
far reaching, and to some, might represent a reason to stop and think. I may
have taken some "license" in interpreting the implications of this Report, but
the Council on Foreign Relations represents a high-thinking group of smart
people. IMO, their report stopped without drawing any of the potential
longer-term implications.
http://www.cfr.org/pdf/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
Perhaps I should start by saying, “let us not deal with today’s reality or
things as they are or as they seem to be, but look at things the way they may
become.”
With all of the controversy over the effects of “free-trade” and NAFTA and the
cross border economics that has already occurred…and now, with the issues
relating to immigration (legal and otherwise) from Mexico, and especially the
“guest worker” program proposed by President Bush, what follows could seem as
“fantasizing,” but in my opinion, may not be that far-fetched.
Please remember…while some people maintain that the “guest worker” program will
actually help stem the tide of illegal immigration and while some people
maintain that in tandem, the granting of legal drivers’ licenses to illegal
immigrants (now “guest workers”) to permit them to work and earn money to send
back to their families in Mexico will help to abate the illegal immigration
problem, I do not agree.
I remember writing perhaps 12-18 months ago a post here regarding the Mexican
Matricula Counsular. It was an ID card issued by the Mexican government to be
used as a means of illegals and legals to open bank accounts in the United
States…of course, at the time, our own FBI declared that the Matricula was not
immune to counterfeiting, and therefore represented a threat to our National
security. But where was this money, if deposited in a U.S. bank by using the
Matricula going to end up? In Mexico, not here in the United States. But “Know
Your Customer” is a basic provision of the new rules of banking following
September 11th.
It seems to me that what Presidents Bush and Fox have been moving toward
throughout this controversy might well be the opening of the borders to
immigration and to free flow of trade…imagine that, an open border between
Mexico and the United States as well as with Canada (perhaps with the exclusion
of Quebec, “tongue-in-cheekly”)…
Of course, to this, as background, one should add the possible dynamic of a
United Europe (now called the European Union), which despite complaints to the
contrary, could quite well become, not only an economic, but a political unit of
great power and force. And consider also, with what other “alliance” would a
United Europe align?
While another TMF poster indicated that she wanted to see cooperation and not
conglomeration, I can see a path by which, whether intended or otherwise, the
geopolitical results could well end up with a unified North
American Alliance. How? Well, I’m going to try to read into the CFR
report and imply certain things that could evolve along the way.
So, imagine a time not so very far away…despite all of the precautions and
technologies…despite all of the supposed abridgements of personal rights
(imagined or otherwise) because of the previously passed but “now <i>archaic</i>”
Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2002 (remember, we are now in 2009 or beyond), another
devastating attack has occurred. In addition, the demographics of the EU,
because of incursions of Arabic speaking citizens of the world, have shifted so
that the European Union so that it, as a unit, is no longer “pure” and white or
Anglo-Saxon or…well, add anything else you wish to this list of what the
European Union once was…but is now part of a greater “Muslim world.”
http://www.cfr.org/pdf/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
Without actually parsing or analyzing the complete adobe file, lets look at the
summary:
When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently
they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries…
Pointing to increased competition from the European Union and rising economic
powers such as India and China in the eleven years since NAFTA took effect,
co-chair Pedro C. Aspe, former Finance Minister of Mexico, said, "We need a
vision for North America to address the new challenges." The Task Force
establishes a blueprint for a powerhouse North American trading area that allows
for the seamless movement of goods, increased labor mobility, and energy
security.
"We are asking the leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada to be bold
and adopt a vision of the future that is bigger than, and beyond, the immediate
problems of the present," said co-chair John P. Manley, Former Canadian
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. "They could be the architects of
a new community of North America, not mere custodians of the status quo."
At a time of political transition in Canada and Mexico, the Task Force proposes
new ideas to cope with continental challenges that should be the focus of debate
in those two countries as well as the United States. To ensure a free, secure,
just, and prosperous North America, the Task Force proposes a number of specific
measures:
The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North
American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be
defined by a common external tariff, and an outer security perimeter.
Make North America safer
o Establish a common security perimeter by 2010: Ahh, a common
security perimeter? Run by who, supervised by who? Seems to me that the
longer-term implication of such a security perimeter is a unification of
security efforts.
o Develop a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers: Well,
that goes hand-in-hand with a common security perimeter, but it also leads to
something quite different. A common ID card for Canadians, Mexicans and
Americans. Does that now imply unfettered cross-border access for all?
o Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence of the list of
“visa waiver” countries;
o Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people, goods, and
vessels (including integration of name-based and biometric watch lists);
o Harmonize exit and export tracking procedures;
o Fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals; and
o Jointly inspect container traffic entering North American ports, building on
the Container Security Initiative.
o Develop a unified border action plan and expand border customs facilities:
Whose border? Which border? Where does it lead? IMO, a unified North American
Alliance.
The three countries of North America are each other’s largest trading
partners. More than 80 percent of Canadian and Mexican trade is with its North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners. Almost one-third of U.S. trade
is with Canada and Mexico. Trade among these three countries has tripled in
value over the past decade. In addition, cross-border direct investment has
increased sharply, contributing to the integration of the three economies.
o Create a single economic space: Adopt a common external tariff; Allow
for the seamless movement of goods within North America; Move to full labor
mobility between Canada and the U.S.</i>: This implies acting as one economic
unit (to counter the economic power of the now Muslim/Arabic dominated United
States of Europe?)…and seamless movement of trade and people across the
borders…why have the borders at all???
o Develop a North American energy strategy that gives greater emphasis to
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases - a regional alternative to Kyoto</i>: No
one noticed this provision of the recommendations of the Task Force on the
Future of North America???
o Review those sectors of NAFTA that were excluded: IMO, of course, this
means that products, industries and areas of trade that were excluded from NAFTA
would be opened for free trade between the three countries of North America. In
the end, why maintain the arbitrary borders or governments?
But the report does say: ”North America is different from other regions of
the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new North American
community should rely more on the market and less on bureaucracy, more on
pragmatic solutions to shared problems than on grand schemes of confederation or
union, such as those in Europe. We must maintain respect for each other’s
national sovereignty.”
So perhaps, if “national identities” need to be maintained, what would stop this
North American revolution (the North American Alliance) to create a modern day,
but truly Continental Congress, this time with representatives of each of the
three components of the unified North American Alliance??? I don’t think that
its too far fetched at all.
Develop and implement a North American regulatory plan that would include
"open skies and open roads" and a unified approach for protecting consumers on
food, health, and the environment. Acting as one, the three countries would
create an “open” trade environment. Again, essentially no borders, just a free
flow of goods and people across the borders.
Expand temporary worker programs and create a "North American preference" for
immigration for citizens of North America.: What this means to me is free
immigration between and among the three countries…all within the single, North
American security ring.
Beyond terrorism, all three countries must deal with a persistent flow of
undocumented immigrants. International criminal activity also poses a continuing
threat to public safety in the region, including drug- and gang-related violence
along the Mexican-U.S. frontier. These cross-border threats cannot be adequately
addressed by any one government alone.
Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure and human capital.
With a more conducive investment climate in Mexico, private funds will be more
accessible for infrastructure and development projects. The United States and
Canada should establish a North American Investment Fund to encourage private
capital flow into Mexico. The fund would focus on increasing and improving
physical infrastructure linking the less developed parts of Mexico to markets in
the north, improving primary and secondary education, and technical training in
states and municipalities committed to transparency and institutional
development. A relatively small amount of funds should be targeted for technical
assistance for project design and evaluation, management, and training. If the
North American Investment Fund is to be effective, it will need significant help
from the United States and Canada, and counterpart funding through higher tax
revenues from Mexico. The fund design should consider such issues as incentives
and debt absorption and management capacity of sub-national governments to
ensure that resources are effectively used. The fund will need to be managed in
a transparent manner according to best international practices, and should be
capitalized through a diverse set of innovative financial mechanisms.
Availability of credit enhancement mechanisms for long-term loans in pesos will
be critical.
Of course, this report stops short of recommending adoption of one currency
for the three countries (for now), but again, one thing leads to another…and
then there are the unintended consequences. I could go on and spend a lot of
time analyzing and parsing various paragraphs and recommendations from this
report.
My opinion though is that we’ve entered a new period in World geo-politics. The
creation of the European Union, despite its short-comings was, IMO, the first
step toward geo-political consolidation. It is not out of the question that
others will follow. Imagine the implications of a unified Asia with China, Japan
and perhaps India as the triumvirate of power within it.
If "you" say that it can’t or won’t happen, then the possibility exists that
"you" ignore the possibility of “let us not deal with today’s reality
or things as they are or as they seem to be, but look at things the way they may
become.”
on 24 May 2005 at 6:47 pm 2.StormWarning
said …
As another installment of the thinking on this subject (anyone else want to
join in???), I wanted to add a little more on the implications of geo-political
consolidation, as a direct outgrowth of the recommendations of the Task Force
for the Future of North America.
Remember that I believe that historians and economists will agree that previous
world wide conflicts have had economic reasons as their basis.
Notwithstanding a catastrophic terrorist event (like the ones fought by Jack
Bauer in the TV show "24"), following the thought process of the formation of
the European Union, the EU could be the first in the dominoes to fall that lead
to Global consolidation and the creation of geo-political blocs…at first for
the economic and perhaps security reasons, but then, possibly as a practical
matter, merging the political entities.
Even recognizing that some Europeans bemoan the creation of the EU, other than
the overriding question of national identity (a Frenchman is a Frenchman, a
German is a German etc.), I don’t believe that sufficient time has passed to
suggest that the "experiment" of the EU has succeeded or failed at this point.
So lets look at some of the parameters of consolidation.
September 11, 2001 disproved once and for all the "theory" that the two great
oceans were a safety buffer for the Americas against external incursion, war on
our shores and the previously unknown and incomprehensible concept of Global
terrorism. If I allow my creativity to form my thoughts, I don’t see the
consolidation as being "simply" "Old World," "New World" and Asia, as much as I
see the more "natural" consolidations of geography. Thus, you might have:
The European Union…Initially, the EU consisted of just six
countries: Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined in 1973, Greece in 1981, Spain
and Portugal in 1986, Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995. In 2004 the biggest
ever enlargement took place with 10 new countries joining…"
http://europa.eu.int/abc/index_en.htm
Ask this question. When push comes to shove, where does Great Britain go ("Rule
Britania")?
If the recommendations of the Task Force are taken in the way that I’ve
previously interpreted them, the North American Alliance includes, at a minimum,
the U.S., Canada and Mexico. What to do with Cuba (Communist, at least until
Fidel is gone) and the poverty stricken countries of Central America, as well as
some of the oil rich portions of South America, remains to be seen, and also
remain to be resolved depending on whether the North American Alliance either
has its own sources of oil and gas (or has the R&D clout to develop its own
sources of alternative energy).
Assuming that South America could possibly find its way to an alliance and that
the oil and resource rich countries didn’t immediately align with one of the
other "alliances" (logically perhaps with the North American
Alliance)…considering the Chavez type government in Venezuela and the
continuing narco-terrorists in Columbia, I wonder how it would happen, but if it
did, it could wield considerable clout both in produce/commodities/metals and
energy (I believe).
East Asia? Could it ever possibly be that there could be an alliance between
China, Japan, India and Indonesia/Malaysia? Could each country overcome the
centuries old cultural and political issues that have kept them apart
economically until now? Assume for the moment that this alliance was formed, if
for no other reason than to combat the perceived power and "threat" posed by a
unified Europe and North America. Consider the enormous technological and
financial strength of this alliance.
What remains is Russian and the states of the former U.S.S.R., and the Middle
East (with its cultural and tribal and other differences, yet with its obvious,
if not fleeting energy choke hold on the rest of the World).
Where would Russia go? Would it stay independent? Or align itself with Asia? or
the Middle East?
No matter how you come out on this, the EU exists, and the implications of the
Task Force Report could easily lead to what I have labeled as the North American
Alliance. Could all of the rest of this happen? I really don’t know, and neither
can anyone else actually predict where the World will gravitate in the next 10
years or so. I do believe one thing for sure…
If "you" say that it can’t or won’t happen, then the possibility exists that
"you" ignore the possibility of “let us not deal with today’s reality
or things as they are or as they seem to be, but look at things the way they may
become.”