BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

The Security and Prosperity Partnership

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
wicker woman
09:05 / 16.10.07
It could be argued that I am conspiracy-minded. Near-30 years of living in the US can do that to a person. Take 9/11, for example. I don't think anything so blatantly silly as "there wasn't really any planes", "space weaponry", any of that bunkus. However, I'd say about the most reliable part of the official story would be the cover to the 9/11 Commission Report.

This is fed by any number of fairly reputable and decidedly scummy things the US government and / or the CIA have been involved in down through the years. From JFK, to Operations Phoenix and Tailwind during Vietnam, to Iran / Contra, to the lies and deaths of the Iraq War, I don't find it difficult in the slightest to see our leaders as an amoral bunch whose only cares are the acquisition of more money and power.

So yeah. Conspiracies. Or, at least, this one in particular.

The SPP, or Security and Prosperity Partnership, consists of a series of mostly content-secret meetings between the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the US that have been happening for the last few years. Suspicions that these serve as a prelude to an EU-like North American Union seem potentially true, just looking at the main page; we can see talk of regulatory cooperation, technological cooperation, and discussions on intellectual property rights.

What the SPP has produced thus far seems draconian even for minor issues, such as the scare tactic that is bird flu.

http://www.state.gov/g/avianflu/91242.htm

"Agree that the imposition and removal of veterinary or public health measures on the movement of people, animals
and goods, under our national laws and international obligations, will not be more restrictive or maintained for a longer period than necessary to achieve the veterinary or public health objective..."

The implication being that of coordinated government interference with the movement of livestock and produce, who can handle them, who can even have them, etc. A seizure of smaller farms in order to facilitate their takeover by corporate farm operations would not surprise me in the slightest. You've got to love the bit about 'international obligations'. Yeah. Because the US is famous for paying the utmost attention to its international obligations.

Another odd thing is that the SPP website is the only government website I've known that actually feels the need to have a 'Myths vs. Facts' section. I'm not opposed to the SPP on those grounds; certainly, if I were to start doubting a government agency every time they did something remotely like this, I'd have to jump in with the lot that thinks the moon landing were faked. And *ugh*, no thanks.

The SPP can also be seen as a precursor to / catalyst for a NAFTA Superhighway, the beginnings of which can be seen in the Trans-Texas Corridor.

http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/ (Official TTC website)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51730

It should be acknowledged that the TTC site has changed massively since its inception. The main page used to boast rather plainly of the plans for a multi-lane monstrosity complete with rail lines, electric and internet cabling, etc.

This could be seen as the final death knell for shipping unions on the west and east coasts, as for obvious reasons, it would be massively cheaper to ship goods down to Mexico and then ship them up to the US or Canada rather than dealing with east/west coast ports.

Another interesting event of note: The Canadian Mounted Police recently got busted for trying to insert agent provocateurs into a peaceful anti-SPP protest. Fortunately, the protesters were not stupid, and saw these guys for what they were.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=St1-WTc1kow
http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2007/220807Provocateurs_SPP.htm (It's an Alex Jones link, which normally I'd avoid like the plague, but there's a really good pic just past halfway down on the page.)

Just to make it very clear at the end here, I'm not a huge fan of Alex Jones. Heh.
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:25 / 16.10.07
The implication being that of coordinated government interference with the movement of livestock and produce, who can handle them, who can even have them, etc.

It should be noted however that this kind of government power is in place in a lot of countries and with good reason. The enforced ban on livestock movements during the current FMD outbreak here in the UK stops people moving potentially infected animals to areas where they may infect others.

Regulation and licensing of those able to deal with livestock ensures that the food products produced by them are accountable in some way in the event of health issues.

Whilst I don't doubt that a NWO style government wouldn't be averse to using these laws for their own gain it is important to understand that they aren't in place simply to oppress the little people.
 
 
Sjaak at the Shoe Shop
12:19 / 16.10.07
I second Evil Scientist on that one.
In Europe we have had a number of epidemics in recent years. Usually involves a no-go area, transport ban, and 'clearing' of infected farms. Not very pleasant..
This goes as far as livestock in Zoos and pets. Sofar draconic measures seem to be the only effective way to deal with this.

So for me that does not seem to be the sign of a conspiracy or anything such. I think the US are actually a bit behind in this respect.

As I am completely unfamiliar with it, could you expand on what is bad about the Nafta superhighway?
 
 
Spaniel
13:12 / 16.10.07
I'm not really seeing the problem with much mentioned above. In fact I'm inclined to think that whether any of it can be exploited by nefarious, power hungry tyrants, the most sensible option isn't to look for that stuff in the first instance, but rather to ask whether it sets out to do what it's ostensibly supposed to.

While I recognise that conspiracies can and do exist (it would be absurd not to), conspiracy theorising has a tendancy to really piss me off, mainly because it distracts from all the real problems right in front of our noses, fails to recognise that the world is a chaotic place, that human organisations will always be fallible (a sensible discussion about the CIA for example would present us with a history chock full of blunders, idiocy and mismanagement - it's only Hollywood that would have us believe otherwise), and encourages people to overlook the obvious in favour of exciting fantasies - such as the fact that restricting the movement of cattle in the event of an outbreak of disease is likely to be a good thing.

Please Barbelith, less of this stuff.
 
 
wicker woman
03:01 / 17.10.07
In Europe we have had a number of epidemics in recent years. Usually involves a no-go area, transport ban, and 'clearing' of infected farms. Not very pleasant..
This goes as far as livestock in Zoos and pets. Sofar draconic measures seem to be the only effective way to deal with this.

I understand that, and I'm not denying the existence or possibility of a pandemic. But the bird flu 'pandemic', such as it is, remains a remote possibility. The latest science regarding it seems to indicate that it would require a number of additional mutations to key sequences before it would become transmissible from human to human. So it strikes me largely as a scare tactic rather than a genuine scare.

As I am completely unfamiliar with it, could you expand on what is bad about the Nafta superhighway?

Two main things. One, the construction of such a massive project likely would represent a singularly large use of eminent domain powers. While this would draw some negative attention to the project, when I consider the general apathy of the American public I'm not convinced it would amount to more than a couple weeks of outrage. Second, and more pressing (I think), the seeming purpose of the highway would be to take advantage of a much cheaper shipping lane in Mexico, bringing goods up through there into the US and Canada, bypassing more expensive US ports on the coasts.

mainly because it distracts from all the real problems right in front of our noses, fails to recognise that the world is a chaotic place, that human organisations will always be fallible

Boboss, I'm inclined to agree with you, but I'd argue that occasionally those "real problems" are fostered by things like this. I don't think being suspicious of undocumented meetings between the leaders of three countries is all too unwarranted, especially when those meetings has seen practically no mainstream news coverage. And especially not when the CMP are willing to go so far as to use agent provocateurs to stop a peaceful protest. Certainly, the asshattery of government in general is no excuse to not keep a spotlight on them.

Please Barbelith, less of this stuff.

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment, mostly because I've seen relatively little, if any of 'that stuff' on Barbelith, and I'm not sure this really qualifies as it anyway. But to each their own.
 
 
jentacular dreams
08:13 / 17.10.07
Second, and more pressing (I think), the seeming purpose of the highway would be to take advantage of a much cheaper shipping lane in Mexico, bringing goods up through there into the US and Canada, bypassing more expensive US ports on the coasts.

I'm having trouble understanding why this is a bad thing? Surely bringing the shipping in via the highway will benefit the mexican economy and reduce some of the overcrowding being experienced by some west US ports? With the (admittedly slow, but gathering pace I feel) turnaround on climate change thinking, one could reasonably hope that by the time such a route takes form carbon taxes may be levied on imports, or at least on the movement of goods *within* such a free trade zone, mitigating any environmental damage. Indeed, given that shipping may be more damaging to the environment than flight might it not make sense to at the same time run a similar land-based route from Canadian ports, potentially bringing about a partial carbon tax on a portion of the goods imported from Asia?
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:59 / 17.10.07
I understand that, and I'm not denying the existence or possibility of a pandemic. But the bird flu 'pandemic', such as it is, remains a remote possibility. The latest science regarding it seems to indicate that it would require a number of additional mutations to key sequences before it would become transmissible from human to human. So it strikes me largely as a scare tactic rather than a genuine scare.

To be fair though, bird flu is still a potentially dangerous disease and is also economically destructive. Just because it's not being used to sell papers at the moment it doesn't mean that it's vanished without a trace.

I'm probably kept better informed on the spread of it through the world than some people because of my work. However it only takes a little bit of data mining for anyone to uncover the fact that it is still extremely active in Asian countries, and that it is still killing people (the last one was in August this year).

Yoko, with regards to your comments on the possibility of H5N1 becoming human-to-human infective on a wide-scale you would do well to remember that it has already done so on an epidemiologically small scale. I'm dead against fear-mongering, but I am also a little annoyed by the constant use of the lack of an influenza epidemic this year as apparent evidence of government conspiracies.

However you might find this old Switchboard thread an interesting read about the various sides of the bird flu argument.
 
 
■
10:18 / 17.10.07
But the bird flu 'pandemic', such as it is, remains a remote possibility.
I was given to understand (anecdotally, mind you, from a biologist friend at Oxford) that it was pretty much accepted as a certainty, the question is not if but when and how severe.
 
 
wicker woman
10:42 / 17.10.07
I'll have to check that thread out tomorrow; thanks, Evil.
 
 
wicker woman
03:02 / 18.10.07
Mice, while I'd agree with at least a few of your points there, my main problems would be (and mind you, I'm no cheerleader for rah-rah patriotism) that this could serve as a pretty severe financial punch for middle-and-lower class people and unions here in the states that are teetering on the edge as it is.

Also, I'm not entirely convinced that this would be beneficial for Mexico. After all, the reason it would be done would be to take advantage of cheaper labor, not to pay these people what they deserve.
 
 
wicker woman
05:12 / 18.10.07
One more thing. As far as the notion of being concerned with real world problems being more important than "conspiracy theories", it occurs to me...

that 10 or so years ago, the idea of the US government maintaining secret prisons, torturing people, arresting people without charge and detaining them for-, well, EVER, using military tribunals to try these people and on top of that, pushing for a separate court to be consulted in regards to these prisoners, would have been considered a wacky conspiracy theory in the mainstream.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:44 / 18.10.07
But it doesn't automatically follow that every conspiracy theory is therefore true.

One of the major thrusts of your opening post was that you were concerned that, what seems to me to be, basic national procedures for controlling/dealing with disease outbreaks in livestock were going to be used to suppress freedom in some way.

Has there been previous cases where disease security legislation has been used to allow corporate take-overs of farmland? It would require a significant number of people to be involved, especially if there was no actual disease out-break. I haven't heard of any "supposed" out-breaks of, for instance, Blue Tongue in the US.

Of course it could in theory be used that way. Just as the implementation of martial law could be used to take-over a democratic society. It's fine to speculate and to be concerned about this kind of thing, but it's best to get as much knowledge as possible about why a certain law is actually in place rather than just picking one and assuming it will be used that way.

The SPP, or Security and Prosperity Partnership, consists of a series of mostly content-secret meetings between the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the US that have been happening for the last few years. Suspicions that these serve as a prelude to an EU-like North American Union seem potentially true, just looking at the main page; we can see talk of regulatory cooperation, technological cooperation, and discussions on intellectual property rights.

Why is this such a bad thing though? Alright the EU system is far from perfect but it seems to work quite well. What would be so bad about greater co-operation between countries. Are there concerns that decisions are going to be made by people in far-away places? There's a lot of that from the anti-EU side of things here in the UK.
 
 
Spaniel
10:32 / 18.10.07
As far as the notion of being concerned with real world problems being more important than "conspiracy theories"

Some real world problems, granted, will come packaged up in the form of a conspiracy. What concerns me, however, is people spending their time hunting for these things at the expense of staring threats and problems such as climate change, measurable (and vast) socio-economic imbalances, global resource shortages right in the face.

Your post, Yoko, stands out to me as part of the problem as it frames things which are very likely straightforward as potential goldmines of naughtiness. Now, that's not to say that naughtiness couldn't come out of these meetings or policies that arise from them, but I think it's better to address these issues on a case by case basis rather than to start from the assumption that the body in question is inherently bad or suspicious. If the body goes on to do lots of bad things, then it's time for that kind of assessment.

As for your mention of torture and illegal detainment, just because it's happening today and has been going on for the last few years, doesn't mean that someone discussing the possibility of it happening ten years ago would be justified to do so - at best they'd be engaging in blue-sky speculation, at worst they'd be mad. Whatever the case, it certainly wouldn't have been wise to listen to them for all kinds of reasons that I can't be bothered to go into because they're self-evident.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:36 / 18.10.07
Boboss, the CIA's own declassified training manuals detail torture methods used against suspected subversives in Central America during the 1980s (see here, which archives an article from the Baltimore Sun).
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:41 / 18.10.07
You might also be interested in this book. Stephen Grey is a former (UK) Times section editor and an award-winning investigative journalist.

"...what I’m writing about in the book is the program of extraordinary rendition. That began as a systematic program used against suspected Islamic terrorists in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, specifically in 1995. And its been going on ever since."

(From an interview with Grey here.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:44 / 18.10.07
just because it's happening today and has been going on for the last few years, doesn't mean that someone discussing the possibility of it happening ten years ago would be justified to do so - at best they'd be engaging in blue-sky speculation, at worst they'd be mad.

Well, or they'd have evidence. I mean, the US government has been assisting in illegal detainment and torture for decades. It's only that it is being done by US citizens, rather than by US-trained foreigners, and on US territory that is a recent innovation.

If somebody were to have said ten years ago "there is a huge military prison operating right now on Guantanamo Bay where foreign nationals are imprisoned without trial and tortured", then they would have been demonstrably wrong, I believe. If somebody had said "the way things are going, the US government only needs a major terrorist attack to start justifying the imprisonment without trial and torture of foreign nationals in a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and in countries with laxer laws on torture", though, they would merely be eerily prescient.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:46 / 18.10.07
The fact that this kind of stuff has been exposed by "properly" acclaimed and accredited investigative journalists can be ascertained with 2 minutes of Googling, so the idea that it's just crazy conspiracy theorising we should all ignore for self-evident reasons is pretty horrifying.
 
 
Spaniel
10:49 / 18.10.07
Didn't make myself clear, I was talking about the current set-up mapping across some blue sky thinking back in the ninties. I am well aware that the American government has been involved in horribleness for a long time.
 
 
Spaniel
10:52 / 18.10.07
though, they would merely be eerily prescient.

My primary "self evident reason" was that to act on the possibility that a statement or line of thought could be eerily prescient would be a bad thing to do.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:27 / 18.10.07
I'm still not clear what you're saying, Boboss. What does "blue-sky thinking" mean in this context, and who would be doing it, by doing what?
 
 
Spaniel
11:40 / 18.10.07
I was responding to this.

that 10 or so years ago, the idea of the US government maintaining secret prisons, torturing people, arresting people without charge and detaining them for-, well, EVER, using military tribunals to try these people and on top of that, pushing for a separate court to be consulted in regards to these prisoners, would have been considered a wacky conspiracy theory in the mainstream.

The person who asserted that, ten years ago, would be engaging in blue sky thinking.

Also, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, Yoko. That we should listen to people who indulge in a bit of conspiracy theorising because they might be getting close to the truth or soon to be truth? That being the case, my point is that to listen to these people without something solid to go on, opens the door to all kinds of craziness.
 
 
Spaniel
11:52 / 18.10.07
(Completely missed your posts above about that book, Petey. I would be very interested in reading it, although I suspect it might make me bite my own fist off with rage)
 
 
wicker woman
02:52 / 19.10.07
I understand where you're coming from, boboss, and honestly, I try not to engage in blue-skying this kind of stuff too much. I just think it's a good idea to keep an eye on these sorts of things, especially things that are getting remarkably little, if any, press coverage.

And yes, I realize this is a shit post; post-facto apologies. I will have something more up later.
 
 
wicker woman
06:11 / 22.10.07
Barbarian Scientist Truth:
Barbarian Scientist Truth-Why is this such a bad thing though? Alright the EU system is far from perfect but it seems to work quite well. What would be so bad about greater co-operation between countries. Are there concerns that decisions are going to be made by people in far-away places? There's a lot of that from the anti-EU side of things here in the UK.

Somewhat that, though that argument would hold against the current system as well, to a certain extent.

I can't really speak to this too much as an outsider, but has the EU really 'worked' all that well? I mean, its various member countries haven't even agreed on a Constitution yet, let alone seem to have really worked on much for the individual members. Outside of simplification of trade policy and a codified monetary system, not much seems to have really happened in all these years.

It would also seem to me that anti-SPP protesters in Canada have a point in thinking that such organizations work to the disadvantage of the less powerful members. What good do loosened trade restrictions do a country that doesn't have much to trade in the first place?

Vision:
If the body goes on to do lots of bad things, then it's time for that kind of assessment.

Haven't they already done enough to warrant that level of suspicion, though? Bush, at the least, usually has 'ulterior motive' written over pretty much anything he does.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:58 / 22.10.07
I can't really speak to this too much as an outsider, but has the EU really 'worked' all that well? I mean, its various member countries haven't even agreed on a Constitution yet, let alone seem to have really worked on much for the individual members. Outside of simplification of trade policy and a codified monetary system, not much seems to have really happened in all these years.

Which would, in theory, show that this kind of thing doesn't have to be a shadowy conspiracy.

I'd say that the benefits of the EU outweigh any drawbacks. But to avoid thread-rottery I'll just drop this link down to the wikipedia page on the "so-called" Four Freedoms. Link.

It would also seem to me that anti-SPP protesters in Canada have a point in thinking that such organizations work to the disadvantage of the less powerful members. What good do loosened trade restrictions do a country that doesn't have much to trade in the first place?

I suppose. However a country which felt that it was going to be taken advantage of would have the choice of not entering into the agreement in the first place. Surely it would be more a case of negotiating for changes in order to ensure fairness?
 
 
Sjaak at the Shoe Shop
07:02 / 23.10.07
What good do loosened trade restrictions do a country that doesn't have much to trade in the first place?

But if you don't have much to trade, then what harm do loosened trade restrictions do?

Looking at the EU, it has been very succesful for countries that were 'lagging behind'. Ireland may be a prime example. The general approach is that to be partner of the EU a country has to go through a rigorous reform process. This initially hurts, often also on a social level, but eventually results in a healthier economy.

Applying the EU principles to NAFTA would be something completely different. Imagine the free transfer of people between Mexico and the US? Not a chance.
Also, paradoxically, the US are a highly protectionistic country. See for example the Jones' Act . A free trade zone would force them to lift these restrictions, which will never fly. With others yes, but with themselves: no way.
 
 
wicker woman
08:51 / 23.10.07
Which would, in theory, show that this kind of thing doesn't have to be a shadowy conspiracy.

Granted. But at a certain point, it becomes "Well, you've broken my foot, blackened my eye, twisted my arm, waterboarded me, and done horrible things to my living room decor. Shall I just wait until you do something else before I get suspicious of your motives, then?"

But if you don't have much to trade, then what harm do loosened trade restrictions do?

I should have made myself more clear. Wouldn't there be some inherent harm in making it easier for large corporations to move resources out of a country that doesn't have the means to take advantage of its own natural wealth?

Ireland may be a prime example.

That's a pretty shaky 'may'. The argument could be made that everyone was just tired of all the shooting, or the increasing legitimacy of Gerry Adams / Sinn Fein had more to do with it, and not so much the EU.

Applying the EU principles to NAFTA would be something completely different.

Not so much the argument I'm making, so perhaps "EU-like" was a bad choice of words. It would be EU-like only in the formation of a more centralized power structure. And certainly, stranger (and arguably worse) things have happened over the protestations of the general public.

See for example the Jones' Act .

I have. This needs to be considered, though:

http://tinyurl.com/2wsq9p

LOST would, at the least, alter (if not outright negate) the Jones Act.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:53 / 23.10.07
That's a pretty shaky 'may'. The argument could be made that everyone was just tired of all the shooting, or the increasing legitimacy of Gerry Adams / Sinn Fein had more to do with it, and not so much the EU.

Ah, Americans. Bless.
 
 
Evil Scientist
09:15 / 23.10.07
Ireland may be a prime example.

That's a pretty shaky 'may'. The argument could be made that everyone was just tired of all the shooting, or the increasing legitimacy of Gerry Adams / Sinn Fein had more to do with it, and not so much the EU.

Umm, yeah. That'd be the Republic of Ireland Sjaak is talking about there Yoko.

Although Northern Ireland is nominally involved with the EU via it's tempestuous relationship with England it isn't a member yet. In the event that it became an independant state I imagine EU membership would not out of the question.
 
 
Sjaak at the Shoe Shop
09:52 / 23.10.07
But, to get the discussion back on track:

Wouldn't there be some inherent harm in making it easier for large corporations to move resources out of a country that doesn't have the means to take advantage of its own natural wealth?

not necessarily, and also, that has very little to do with free trade.
But firstly, if you have resources, you also have something to trade. I assume you are referring to natural resources, but labour can also be considered as a resource.
So if a corporation moves into China to set up a factory producing jeans than there is nothing intrinsically bad about this. On the contrary, it will create jobs and economic growth. If there is a flaw it is not in the principle of free trade but in the local system, which may allow child labor, does not have minimum wage etc, or does not police their own laws.

With regards to natural resources, especially oil and gas, there are several countries without the knowledge and technology to develop their reserves. The only way to do this is through foreign corporations, who in turn pay a license fee and a production fee to the nation's government . Over time a country can build up their knowledge so as to modify the production sharing agreement to an extent that only 10 to 30% of the production is left to the foreign corporations (which is the current situation in the middle east). So through this approach a country can generate wealth and knowledge, which would otherwise be left undeveloped.

(As an aside, don't want to sidetrack too much, the part of the Jones' Act I was referring to is the Cabotage section, whereby all transport of goods between US ports is restricted to US vessels. This very much protectionistic, and unfortunately by no means negated by UNCLOS.)
 
 
Sjaak at the Shoe Shop
10:15 / 23.10.07
But I would fully agree that 'Security and Prosperity Partnership' does indeed sound like a typical Orwellian Bush statement, like the 'Patriot Act' and similar stuff.
 
 
■
11:54 / 23.10.07
Although Northern Ireland is nominally involved with the EU via it's tempestuous relationship with England it isn't a member yet.

Huh? Yes, it is. As part of the UK it is indeed a full member. As with Scotland, Wales and any other region or the UK, if it ever became independent it would probably have to apply to be readmitted.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:12 / 23.10.07
Northern Ireland is an administrative region of the United Kingdom, with a devolved decision-making body - Government of Ireland Act 1920. As such, it is a part of the EU in the same way that Alsace or Bavaria are parts of the EU. It is not a full member in itself, but it is part of the UK, which is a full member.
 
 
wicker woman
03:16 / 24.10.07
Ah, Americans. Bless.

Oh, come on... I don't think I can really be blamed for assuming that troubles with Northern Ireland were part of what Sjaak was referring to when talking about how 'Ireland' was lagging behind.

The only way to do this is through foreign corporations, who in turn pay a license fee and a production fee to the nation's government . Over time a country can build up their knowledge so as to modify the production sharing agreement to an extent that only 10 to 30% of the production is left to the foreign corporations (which is the current situation in the middle east). So through this approach a country can generate wealth and knowledge, which would otherwise be left undeveloped.

This assumes an awful lot of fair dealing and benevolence on the part of these corporations that I'm not convinced is there. And I'm kind of curious what you mean by that being 'the current situation in the middle east'. OPEC exists only by the good graces of Exxon/Mobile, or something?
 
 
wicker woman
07:01 / 24.10.07
Like to add, Sjaak, that I do agree that underdeveloped nations need the help of more prosperous ones. I do think a better balance could be struck, though. How to strike said balance could be a topic all of its own...
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply