Laura Carlsen of the "Americas Program, Center for International Policy" (who also blogs at americasmexico.blogspot.com) offers "The North American Union Farce" (link). She raises issues with the Security and Prosperity Partnership, but she also disputes that it could be a precursor to a North American Union. This is the "slightly-honest Left" version of NAU denials, as opposed to those on the Left who are useful idiots or worse and who reflexively dismiss all concerns simply because of those who express those concerns (a recent example: Alex Pareene). She has her own issues to deal with:
While the lack of transparency and the U.S. corporate and security-dominated agenda of the SPP are cause for great concern, they are not evidence of a plot to move toward a North American Union. Among the most bizarre assumptions of NAU scaremongers is the contention that the SPP will threaten U.S. sovereignty and erase borders. The idea of a regional union that effaces U.S. sovereignty is light-years away from George W. Bush's foreign policy of unilateral action and disdain for international law and institutions. On the contrary, the precepts of the Bush administration's foreign policy point to a return to the neocon belief that the world would be a better place if the U.S. government just ran everything.
Of course, under some form of continental integration, the U.S. - or at least U.S.-based elites working with elites in the other countries - would be the ones running things, all comfortably unilateraly.
Then, it's on to the, "stop worrying about your issues, worry about mine!" part:
Given the absolute lack of factual data to support the existence of a secret plan to create a North American Union, it's tempting to assume that the NAU scare was put forth as a red herring to divert attention from real issues facing the country. By channeling the insecurities of white working-class Americans into belief in an attack on U.S. sovereignty, the NAU myth obscures the very real globalization issues raised by NAFTA - job loss, labor insecurity, the surge in illegal immigration, and racial tensions caused by the portrayal of immigrants as invaders. This is convenient for both rightwing politicians and the government and business elites they attack because real solutions to these problems would include actions anathema to the right, including unionization, enforcement of labor rights, comprehensive immigration reform, and regulation of the international market. Instead, these options are shunted aside with the redefinition of the problem as a conspiracy of anti-American elites.
1. It would be extraordinarily foolish to wait for a smoking gun before worrying about the possibility of a NAU emerging.
2. Those racial tensions aren't caused by a small number of commentors referring to an "invasion", but to the presence itself of the illegal aliens.
3. The elites trying to encourage the rest of us to think they're conspiring against us is the cover for what's in effect a conspiracy by the elites? Does that make sense to anyone else?
4. Needless to say, many of those on the right support "comprehensive immigration reform", something that would assist the elites and something that would make the situation even worse.
5. Those who support "free" trade are obviously quite willing to fluff up the pillows a bit; witness Barack Obama's proposals to slightly left-ify NAFTA, something that has no doubt been vetted as acceptable by those who support "free" trade. See, of course, his recent article in which, speaking in code, he came out in support of the SPP.
NAU · Mon, 03/03/2008 - 22:38 · Importance: 4