Advertisements

Nobel Peace Joke: The Prize goes for the European Union

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | OCTOBER 12, 2012

The European Union is the newest recipient of the largely depreciated Nobel Peace Prize Award. Previous winners include current US president Barack Obama, whose extended wars continue to kill thousands of people around the world. The prize given to the EU is as unexpected as it can get.

The announcement was made Friday morning in Oslo by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which praised the achievements of the EU for “the advancement of peace and reconciliation” in Europe and the establishment of “democracy and human rights” in the continent.

According to the Nobel Committee the award intends to highlighted the achievement of the banker controlled club, which is composed by 27 members. The EU is charged with building Europe after the Second World War, even though its creators kept its existence quite until late in the 20th century so that its operations and efforts to create a giant technocracy were kept under the radar.

The EU is also praised for expanding democracy and stability in the Eastern part of the continent, even though it has been a key to promote military invasions, genocide and death in that very region of Europe. Supposedly, the EU was relevant during and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the communist bloc. This assumption is false, because Communism never collapsed. The EU received one million euros as part of the Prize, which will be officially given to the globalist organization next December 10 in Oslo.

Ironically, Norway, the state that awarded the Prize to the EU has refused to become part of the corrupt political and economic bloc. Its people rejected the call to become part of the European Union twice; first in 1972 and later in 1994. According to the latest polls, Norwegians still refuse to join the EU today.

The Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union comes to crown a project born 55 years ago, which had the ambitious goal to integrate the whole continent in order to hand it over to the banking oligarchies. Just as it happened with the United Nations, the EU was an attempt to concentrate political and economic power into fewer hands. The EU creators fancy themselves as responsible for avoiding war in the continent, although the real reason for the lack of war is that all countries there are controlled by the same people, who found a better way to wage war against their people.

Instead of launching military attacks in order to conquer nations, the authoritarian control freaks adopted a fraudulent way to enhance and perpetuate their power which also includes soft kill mechanisms. That seed has a leafy tree, well-known today for its success in bringing down and destroying millions of lives around the old continent by collapsing the economy and robbing people of their livelihoods. That is what the EU is celebrating today.

The European Union is what the African Union is to Africa, or what the North American Union is for Mexico, the United States and Canada. The proposal to create an European Union is full of “good intentions” which are actually part of a list of bullet points that are a danger to the world’s society. The EU is not only a commercial or political alliance, but a project to consolidate nations into regional governments, in preparation to establish a one world government. The European Union is the precedent to having the people of the region give away their sovereignty in exchange for world peace

The EU model succeeded so well, that the same kind of continental engineering was planned for and implemented on all other regions of the planet. The same tools for implanting control through the slow and progressive use of false crises to bring about the ideal framework for law and order around the world originated from the globalist minds in Britain, the US, and other nations that sought to build a structure that promoted global interdependence.

The lies about free trade, lower prices and less limitations to traffic and commercial exchange made by the controllers were a political and economic hook to attract more fans. What has resulted from those promises is a system of control which has been put into written form and adopted in international conventions and agreements such as the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and others.

Since the promises of bountifulness did not come true, the globalists in control of the EU had to implement another mechanism to find common ground in the pursuit of a One Europe project. First, they promoted the idea of making membership to the EU mandatory and later the decided to precipitate the financial fall of the continent as an excuse to call for more political and economic control. Even the leaders of member nations have now called for the concentration of power into the hands of supranational organizations as the only way to avoid financial Armageddon.

One of the clearest proposals contained in manuscripts that have been proposed for the EU is that countries will no longer have the option to leave the bloc. This move is meant to assure the controllers that every single measure created by the EU government will be absolutely binding for its members and that if a member state does not like a determined policy, its representatives cannot simply decide to leave the group. Right now, the global crisis — engineered by the same globalists who are behind the EU — has prompted its founders to call for the tougher controls over trade, higher taxes and homogeneous socio-communist solutions as the only way out of the crisis.

I told you. Communism wasn’t dead.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Advertisements

Less Sovereignty is the Central Bankers Solution for the Crisis

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 29, 2012

Everyone on the main stream seems to believe that the continuous meetings between European central bankers and government officials are seeking to save the Euro and to help the governments deal with their sovereign debts. It is common to hear on television how journalists and so-called analysts explain that their expectations include the proposal of real solutions to the crisis which immediately produce jobs and bring stability to the markets.

They just don’t get it. These meetings between central bankers and European leaders are nothing about stability, a solution to the debt problem or the creation of jobs around the euro zone. The latest agreement between the EU Council and the Prime Ministers of Italy and Spain is an example of how the bankers are in complete control. Although the media has painted the bailout of the Spanish and Italian banks as a triumph for both governments, which according to the reports “had their way” when negotiating with the bankers, the reality is they are simply following orders. It wasn’t the Spanish and Italian governments the ones who imposed the conditions that will rule the bailout, but the banks.

The rescue of the banking system in those countries is indeed a result of Italy and Spain submitting, accepting and supporting the idea that the European Central Bank will officially turn into the manager of all Euro economies. Only after Mariano Rajoy and Mario Monti accepted that condition, was that the central bankers gave the green light to ‘lend the money’ to the Spanish and Italian banks, not the other way around. The main stream media is portraying an outcome that is completely the opposite to reality by saying that Mr. Rajoy and Mr. Monti twisted German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s arm into accepting their conditions. The truth is that Merkel herself had to accept the centralization of economic planning sought by the banks as a condition not to let the EU zone collapse before the expected time, and with it drag every single nation including Germany into the rabbit hole they are all going towards in a controlled fashion.

Less sovereignty in exchange for solidarity; this is the latest talking point that emerged from European leaders to justify the loss of self-rule and the intervention of European bankers in the decision making process at the national level. Governments have publicly adopted what seems to be a socialist standing to try to sell their fiscal irresponsibility and to deviate attention from the acquisition of European nations by the central bankers who are the origin of the current financial crisis. But it is not socialism you see, it’s fascism. Countries must get more debt and surrender their sovereignty in order to solve a crisis that is not supposed to get solved, but that was created and planned to further centralize power in the hands of the bankers themselves.

Everyone who is well-informed is familiar with the World Bank and IMF’s plans to cause the current crisis, — and all the other ones that came before — how they’ve applied the same neo-feudal model throughout history to destroy economies and artificially recreate them using models for growth based on the acquisition of debt and the never-ending payments of interests on that debt. It needs to be said: This crisis is not accidental or unexpected. It was planned and executed for decades to seek a justification for a central government just as it has been promoted by the bankers and the media for the past 12 months. The result of the current negotiations in not to seek an exit to the debt problem or to encourage economic growth, but to hand even more power to the bankers.

The meeting held today where European Prime Ministers pose as the saviors is nothing else than window dressing. There is no solidarity on a proposal that intends to make nations less independent and more enslaved to the central bankers. The result that will came from the meeting held by Mariano Rajoy, Angela Merkel Mario Monti and François Hollande is further consolidation of financial power; nothing else. As explained by Joseph Stiglitz, the World Bank and the IMF pursue a policy of financial enslavement against every country by following four simple steps.

Privatization, which is more like ‘Briberization’, he told Greg Palast. Under this scheme, economies are collapsed from the inside while consolidating national assets for pennies on the dollar. Briberization yields then to the second step,  a one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan, which in theory intends to rescue a country’s economy by using  capital market liberalization. This, again in theory, would allow the free flow of investment in and out of the country, but in reality it is the process through which the bankers complete the theft of resources and send them out every time a country buys into the “rescue your economy’ non-sense. As explained by Palast in his article The Globalizer who came in from the Cold, foreign monies come in to the countries for speculative acquisitions in various sectors of the economy and then leaves just as suddenly as it came. The result is the literal disappearance of a nation’s reserves in a matter of days. In order to get back some of those monies, entities like the IMF and the World Bank immediately demand that the country raise interest rates to anywhere between 30% and 80%.

Next, on step three, the bankers mandate that the government impose steep increases in the prices of basic needs such as food, water and gas. In the mid-term, the unexpected increases cause what Stiglitz calls the “The IMF riot.” During this time the bankers “turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up,” said Stiglitz. The bankers simply cut any and all subsidies to food and fuel for the poorest people as it happened in Argentina at the turn of the century and in Indonesia in 1998. Other examples of these riots were the ones in Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank.

Secret documents were also obtained by the BBC and The Observer which showed that the banks wanted to make the US dollar the official currency of Ecuador and by doing that, they would submit more than half of the population there under the poverty line. This is something similar to what was done in Argentina and what is being tried now in Europe. According to Stiglitz, although millions of people end up as losers under this system, there are indeed a handful of winners: The Banks. The western banks and the US Treasury make gigantic amounts of cash by infliction pain over developing nations. He cited the case of Ethiopia, where the World Bank and IMF ordered the government to ‘invest’ money on the Federal Reserve’s Treasuries which pays only 4 percent interest, while the country had to borrow money at 12 percent. Ethiopia was looted by the banks.

On step four of the bankers propose and impose the so-called Free Trade, as they did through NAFTA, CAFTA and other trade agreements. They call these programs “poverty reduction strategies”. However, all they do is open markets for a one way flow of products from powerful nations like the United States and China to the poor countries, while closing their own markets to foreign products. The almost automatic consequence of this free trade agreements is the destruction of the local production and farming since they cannot compete with the ridiculous low prices offered by corporations that have their products manufactured by slave labor in Asia and Africa.

As Greg Palast puts it, let there be no confusion about the role of the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization in the destruction of nation-states, private property and sovereignty, because they are just three masks that hide the faces of the monopoly men who seek to impose a centralized government model based on absolutist conditions.The results of the negotiations to supposedly save the euro zone are not such, they are just another step into the creeping arrival of world tyranny being sold as the only possible solution to deliver all of us from the consequences of “unbalanced economies”. The plans for the creation and implosion of economies were drafted long ago and the result of those practices is one and only one: World Government. This outcome, by the way, is not a solution or the solution to the current economic crisis.

When you have leaches sucking you dry, the only possible solution is to remove the leaches. The bleeding is the collapsing economy, the leaches are the central bankers, the solution is to remove them from our bodies. Nothing else has worked, nothing else will work.

América Latina infiltrada por Fascistas, Socialistas e falsos Capitalistas

POR LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | 22 JUNHO 2012

Os números e os tipos de socialistas, fascistas e corporativistas eleitos na América Latina tem crescido exponencialmente ao longo das últimas duas décadas, e assim também as massas de pessoas bem-intencionadas que acreditam em suas mentiras sobre a justiça social, a bondade do governo e as vantagens das economias de serviços patrocinadas pelas corporações mais poderosas do mundo. Algumas dessas corporações, é claro, têm rendimentos mais elevados do que muitas nações na região e do mundo. Como se o aparecimento desses movimentos não bastasse, recentemente, os chefes de grupos corporativistas, socialistas, fascistas e falsos capitalistas, se uniram para formar alianças comerciais e políticas facilmente controladas, que eles dizem, vão trazer desenvolvimento real a seus países e seus povos.

A mais recente dessas alianças é formada por Chile, Peru, Colômbia e México, chamada Aliança do Pacífico. De acordo com os procuradores que atuam como os criadores — os presidentes dos quatro países — a Aliança é um esforço para unir e buscar a realização de objetivos comuns. Chile, México, Peru e Colômbia são um punhado de economias latino-americanas com menos danos na região. Na verdade, o Chile tornou-se uma história de sucesso na última década, tendo em conta a implementação de políticas que permitiram um crescimento decente com base no apetite do país pela poupança. No entanto, Peru, Colômbia e México são uma história diferente, o que levanta a questão, porque o Chile se juntaria a Estados que estão controlados abertamente por corporações globalistas?

México tem trabalhado por muitos anos sob os auspícios dos Estados Unidos, e asociou-se ao infame Acordo de Livre Comércio (NAFTA), que tem sido acusado de deliberadamente destruir a produção industrial dos EUA, porque promove a circulação de pessoas — imigrantes ilegais — do sul para o norte, enquanto financeiramente recompensa as empresas para que deixem o solo americano e realizem suas operações fora do território dos EUA para evitar pagar impostos. Peru é uma história diferente. Seu passado sempre foi sublinhado pela pobreza, a corrupção,  e o governo com mão de ferro. O último aspecto não mudou um pouco. O país passou de Alberto Fujimori ao atual líder Ollanta Humala, que chegou ao poder em 2011. Ele é reconhecido como um extremista anti-mercado.

Enquanto isso, a Colômbia é, talvez, o aliado mais incomum em um grupo que supostamente visa o desenvolvimento e o livre comércio. Colômbia, como o México tem sido um amigo próximo dos Estados Unidos na guerra fracassada contra as drogas, que tem sido um esforço insuficiente e mal gerenciado para conter o tráfico de drogas e a violência que deriva da existência de grupos armados e governos que controlam o fluxo das drogas. Na verdade, a chamada guerra contra as drogas é uma fachada para ocultar a transferência das mesmas drogas, seus mercados e bilhões de dólares em lucros, que são lavados a cada ano nos maiores bancos do mundo.

Grupos como a Aliança do Pacífico são apenas dissidência controlada. Na América Latina, a criação de blocos econômicos e políticos de “desenvolvimento” não é novedade. Antes da Aliança do Pacífico, as nações formaram UNASUL, ALBA, MERCOSUL, CARICOM, CELAC, a Comunidade Andina e muitos outros. Os resultados destas associações, em ambas as esferas políticas e econômicas têm sido basicamente os mesmos: nada.

Quando consultados, sobre o impacto do MERCOSUL sobre as compras de matérias-primas ou as vendas de produtos acabados, em privado os empresários dizem que o MERCOSUL é uma iniciativa de fachada que tem feito pouco ou nada para melhorar o comércio entre os seus membros. Na verdade, tanto o Brasil como a Argentina estão em uma guerra comercial que ameaça danificar os principais acordos comerciais entre parceiros comerciais dos dois países. A Argentina adotou uma política protecionista forte, enquanto o Brasil se recusa a permitir o fluxo de produtos argentinos para os seus importadores.

Os líderes de países como Bolívia, Venezuela e Equador têm falhado miseravelmente em trazer o desenvolvimento para seus povos. Eles chegaram ao poder prometendo uma vida melhor aos seus seguidores, mas tornaram-se tiranos com idéias socialistas. Apesar desse registro, os membros da Aliança do Pacífico parecem acreditar que um novo grupo de países apoiados pela China, vai trazer riqueza e melhores condições de vida do que outros ex-presidentes e líderes comunitários não tem fornecido. Todos os membros da Aliança tem a intenção de atrair mais ajuda da China a seus países, tentando imitar os esforços do Brasil para abrir a porta para o regime comunista. Suas declarações oficiais afirmam que buscam ampliar o comércio com a Ásia.

Com a incorporação da China na equação, a Aliança do Pacífico espera atrair outros parceiros na região, mas apenas aqueles que podem demonstrar o compromisso histórico com o livre comércio e o desenvolvimento econômico. Sob esta premissa, outras nações menores, como Costa Rica e Panamá estão tentando entrar na Aliança. Ironicamente, tanto Costa Rica quanto Panamá têm sido aliados dos EUA na guerra contra as drogas e a implementaram políticas que silenciosamente deterioram os direitos dos cidadãos.

Por exemplo, Costa Rica, permitiu a chegada de militares dos EUA no seu território sob o pretexto de que iria ajudar na ‘guerra contra as drogas’. Como se isso não foi uma violação da soberania do país, os EUA foi autorizado a estabelecer uma base naval na costa do Atlântico. Durante os primeiros anos da construção do Canal do Panamá, o país renunciou sua soberania aos americanos, que mais tarde deram a posse do canal para a China em 2000. Esta é uma das maiores preocupações que os críticos manifestaram sobre a nova integração. Alguns destes países têm sido associados com grupos comunistas, fascistas ou marxistas no passado, mas agora promoven-se como patrocinadores dos mercados livres, livre comércio e da justiça social.

O anúncio oficial da Aliança do Pacífico foi feita há poucos dias pelo presidente chileno, Sebastián Piñera, que tentou falar em poesia sobre o novo bloco. “Das alturas de Paranal, no deserto mais árido do mundo sob o mais claro dos céus, este acordo oficial da à luz a Aliança do Pacífico”, disse ele. “Não há nenhuma incompatibilidade ou exclusão de outros esquemas de integração. Nós não somos contra ninguém, mas em favor de ainda mais integração.” Enquanto isso, seu novo parceiro, o presidente mexicano Felipe Calderón disse que “o potencial econômico da Aliança do Pacífico é importante.” Sua contra parte na Colômbia ecoou o mesmo tipo de visão sobre a nova parceria acrescentando que a Aliança do Pacífico é o “processo de integração mais importante da América Latina.”

Embora a existência de grupos de oposição à Aliança do Pacífico não foi citado como uma razão para formar este grupo, nos bastidores dos governos os lideres do Chile e da Colômbia têm demonstrado sua preocupação com o criação de sociedades secretas, como o Foro de São Paulo, uma organização de simpatizantes de Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez e Luiz Inácio da Silva, um dos fundadores do grupo. Esses líderes também subscreven-se a ideologias que são compartilhados no Equador, Nicarágua e Argentina, embora os três últimos países nao expressaram seu compromisso publicamente. A falta de reconhecimento público, no entanto, não impediu que os cidadãos dos países que sofreram na pobreza, criminalidade, insegurança e governos abusivos e repressivos, que é o que seus líderes se comprometeram a erradicar originalmente. O Foro de São Paulo também está ligado a traficantes de drogas e grupos armados revolucionários marxistas, do tipo dos Sandinistas nicaragüenses, e os governos russo e chinês.

Os cenários listados acima são os que a Aliança asinala como perigosos e indesejáveis. A integração dos países comprometidos com desistir de sua independência, sem consultar os seus cidadãos, a fim de abrir a porta para ideólogos fascistas, socialistas ou comunistas, que, supostamente, tem as melhores intenções em mente foi o resultado comum de tentativas anteriores de criar grupos de política comercial e estratégia como a Aliança do Pacífico. Foi o que aconteceu na Europa, Ásia, América do Norte e, definitivamente, na América Latina. A maioria, se não todos os grupos criados em nome do desenvolvimento e progresso eram impostores se escondendo atrás de homens e mulheres carismáticos que pregavam o evangelho que as pessoas queriam ouvir.

Assim como os acordos militares têm servido aos interesses daqueles que traficam armas em troca de dinheiro ou drogas, os acordos comerciais deixaram os países membros mais pobres e mais dependentes dos poderosos interesses corporativos. A pergunta a fazer é por que os líderes políticos continuam a renunciar à soberania, a fim de supostamente promover o comércio, quando ambos — soberania e comercio — não são mutuamente exclusivos? Na verdade, o mundo nunca teve um ambiente mais estável, economicamente e financeiramente, que quando os países estabeleceram acordos comerciais bilaterais e multilaterais sem abrir mão da propriedade dos recursos e leis sem os que os tecnocratas não-eleitos controlam o destino de todos.

Latin America Infiltrated by Statists, Socialists and Fake Free Marketeers

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 13, 2012

The numbers and types of Statist, Socialist and Corporate Capitalists in power around Latin America have grown exponentially in the last two decades, and with them so have the masses of well-meaning people who believe their lies about social justice, the goodness of big government and the advantages of service economies sponsored by the most powerful corporations in the planet. Some of these corporations, by the way, have bigger revenues than many nations from that region and the world. As if the emergence of those movements was not bad enough, lately, the heads of socialist, statist and false free market groups have united to form more easily controllable commercial and political alliances, which they say, will bring real development to their countries and their people.

The most recent of those alliances is the one formed by Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico, called the Pacific Alliance. According to the front men who act as the creators, — the presidents of the four countries — the alliance is an effort to unite and to seek the realization of common goals. Chile, Mexico, Peru and Colombia are a handful of Latin American states with the least damaged economies in the region. In fact, Chile has become a story of success in the last decade or so, given its application of policies which have allowed for decent growth based on the country’s appetite for saving. However, Peru, Colombia and Mexico are a different story, which begs the question, why would Chile go into business with well-known corporate controlled failed states?

Mexico has for many years worked under the auspices of the United States, partnering on the infamous North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been charged with eliminating the industrial production of the US by design, permitting the free movement of people — illegal aliens — from the south to the north, while rewarding companies that move their operations outside American soil and avoiding corporate taxes, among others. Peru is a different story. Its past has always been highlighted by poverty, government corruption, and statist rule. This last aspect has not changed a bit. The country went from Alberto Fujimori to the current Peruvian leader Ollanta Humala, who rose to power in 2011. He is recognized as a anti-market extremist.

Meanwhile, Colombia is perhaps the strangest ally in a group that supposedly seeks development and free trade. Colombia, just as Mexico has been a close friend of the United States in the failed war on drugs, which has proven an insufficient and poorly managed effort to curb drug trade and the violence that stems from the existence of armed groups and governments controlling the flow of narcotics. In reality, the so-called war on drug trade is a facade to hide the worldwide campaign for the control of illegal drugs, their markets and the billions of dollars in profits that are laundered  every year by the largest banks on the face of the planet.

Groups such as the Pacific Alliance are not more than controlled dissidence, easily manageable by their sponsors. In Latin America, the creation of economic or political blocs to “further development” is not new. Before the Pacific Alliance, nations formed UNASUR, ALBA, MERCOSUR, Caricom, CELAC, the Andean Community and many others. The results of these unions both in the political and economic realms have been largely the same: Nothing.

When asked about the impact of MERCOSUR in their purchases of raw materials or sales of finished products, companies in Latin America privately say that the MERCOSUR is just a window dressing initiative that has done little or nothing to improve commerce among its members. In fact, as we speak, both Brazil and Argentina are engaged in a trade war that threatens to bring down important business deals between commercial partners in both countries. Argentina adopted a strong protectionist policy while Brazil refuses to allow the flow of Argentinian goods to its importers.

The leaders of countries like Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador have failed miserably to bring development to their people. They arrived to power promising better living conditions to supporters to only turn into tyrants with socialist leaning ideas. Despite this record, the members of the Pacific Alliance seem to believe that a new group of countries supported by China, will bring about the riches and improved living conditions that past presidents and community leaders failed to provide. All members of the Alliance intend to attract even more Chinese aid to their countries, trying to emulate Brazil’s efforts to open the door to the communist regime. Their official statements allege that they seek to expand trade with Asia.

By bringing China into the equation, the Pacific Alliance seeks to attract other business partners from the region, but only those who can show historical compromise with free trade and economic development. Under this premise, other smaller nations such as Costa Rica and Panama are attempting to jump on the bandwagon. Ironically, both Costa Rica and Panama have been American allies in the war on drugs and have implemented policies designed to slowly and quietly crack down on citizens’ rights.

For example, Costa Rica permitted the arrival of US military men into its territory under the excuse that it would help fight the war on drugs. As if that wasn’t enough of a violation to the country’s sovereignty, the US has now been allowed to set up a naval base in the Atlantic coast. During the early years of the construction of the Panama Canal, this country basically surrendered its sovereignty to the Americans, who later yielded possession of the Canal to China in 2000. This is one of the biggest concerns that critics have expressed about the newest integration. Some of these nations have associated with communist, statist or marxist groups in the past, but now fashion themselves as sponsors of free markets, free trade and social justice.

The official announcement of the Pacific Alliance was made just days ago by Chilean president Sebastián Piñera, who got all poetic about the new bloc. “From the heights of Paranal, in the most arid desert in the world and under the clearest of skies, we have signed a pact officially giving birth to the Pacific Alliance,” he said. “There are no incompatibilities or exclusion vis-a-vis other integration efforts. We are against nobody but rather in favor of even greater integration.” Meanwhile, his new partner, Mexican president Felipe Calderon said that “The Pacific Alliance’s economic potential is significant.” His counterpart from Colombia echoed the same kind of prospects for the new association by adding that the Pacific Alliance is the “most important integration process in Latin America.”

Although the existence of completely opposing groups was not cited as a reason to form the Pacific Alliance, behind the scenes governments like the Chilean and the Colombian have shown their concern about the creation of secretive partnerships like the São Paulo Forum, an organization composed by followers of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Luiz Inacio Da Silva, one of the founders of the group. These leaders subscribe to ideologies also shared by Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Argentina, although these last three nations do not express their adherence publicly. The lack of public recognition however, hasn’t prevented the citizenry of those countries from suffering from poverty, crime, insecurity and abusive, repressive governments, which are exactly what their leaders promised to eradicate. The São Paulo Forum is also linked to narco-traffickers and armed Marxist revolutionaries, of the likes of the Nicaraguan Sandinistas as well as the Russian and the Chinese governments.

The above mentioned scenarios are the ones critics of these alliances often warn against. The integration of countries that agree to surrender their independence without previously consulting their citizens in order to open the door to fascist, socialist or communist ideologues, who supposedly have the best of intentions in mind has been the common result of previous attempts to create strategic commercial and political groups. It happened in Europe, Asia, North America and definitely in Latin America. Most if not all of the unions assembled in the name of development and progress were just shams hidden behind charismatic men and women who preached the gospel that the people wanted to hear.

While military agreements have served the interests of those who traffic arms in exchange for cash or drugs, commercial accords rendered many nations poorer and more dependent on powerful corporate interests. The question that must be asked is why do political leaders continue to surrender sovereignty in order to have trade when they are not mutually exclusive? In fact, the world was never a more stable place, economically and financially, than when countries traded in a bilateral and multilateral ways, without surrendering the ownership of their resources and laws to unelected technocrats who are now in total control of everyone’s destiny.

The North American Homeland Security Perimeter

A Threat to Canada’s National Sovereignty

by Dana Gabriel
Global Research
December 21, 2011

After months of negotiations, the U.S. and Canada have unveiled new trade, regulatory and security initiatives to speed up the flow of goods and people across the border. The joint action plans provide a framework that goes beyond NAFTA and continues where the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) left off. This will take U.S.-Canada integration to the next level and is the pretext for a North American Homeland Security perimeter.

On December 7, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the Beyond the Border Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness Action Plan. The new deal focuses on addressing security threats early, facilitating trade, economic growth and jobs, integrating cross-border law enforcement, as well as improving infrastructure and cyber-security. It will act as a roadmap with different parts being phased in over the next several years. This includes the creation of various pilot projects. Many aspects of the agreement will also depend on the availability of funding from both governments. In addition, the two leaders issued a separate Regulatory Cooperation Council Action Plan that sets out initiatives whereby the U.S. and Canada will seek greater regulatory alignment in the areas of agriculture and food, transportation, environment, health, along with consumer products.

At a Joint News Conference, President Obama declared that, “Canada is key to achieving my goal of doubling American exports and putting folks back to work. And the two important initiatives that we agreed to today will help us do just that.” He went on to say, “we’re agreeing to a series of concrete steps to bring our economies even closer and to improve the security of our citizens.” Obama also added, “we’re going to improve our infrastructure, we’re going to introduce new technologies, we’re going to improve cargo security and screening.” Prime Minister Harper proclaimed that, “These agreements create a new, modern order for a new century. Together, they represent the most significant steps forward in Canada-U.S. cooperation since the North American Free Trade Agreement.” He explained that, “The first agreement merges U.S. and Canadian security concerns with our mutual interest in keeping our border as open as possible to legitimate commerce and travel.” Harper described how, “The second joint initiative will reduce regulatory barriers to trade by streamlining and aligning standards.”

Some of the measures found in the Beyond the Border action plan include conducting joint, integrated threat assessments; improving cooperative law enforcement capacity and national intelligence- and information-sharing; cooperating on research and best practices to prevent and counter homegrown violent extremism; working to jointly prepare for and respond to binational disasters and enhancing cross-border critical infrastructure protection and resilience. Other facets of the deal will work towards adopting an integrated cargo security strategy; implementing entry and exit verification; establishing and verifying the identity of foreign travellers to North America; better aligning Canadian and U.S. programs for low-risk travellers and installing radio frequency identification technology at key border crossings.

As part of the agreement, both countries will, “implement two Next-Generation pilot projects to create integrated teams in areas such as intelligence and criminal investigations, and an intelligence-led uniformed presence between ports of entry.” This will build on past joint law enforcement initiatives such as the Shiprider program and the Integrated Border Enforcement Teams. The Next-Generation pilot projects are scheduled to be deployed by the summer of 2012. In September, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed plans that would allow law enforcement officers to operate on both sides of the border. He announced that, “the creation of ‘NextGen’ teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.” Holder also commented that, “In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative, such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing abilities.”

In his article, How the U.S. blackmailed Canada, Gar Pardy stressed that as part of a North American security zone, “Canadian security institutions will be more closely integrated with those of the United States.” While addressing the Beyond the Border declaration and the subsequent action plan, he highlighted the fact that, “these are not formal treaties or even formal agreements, although there could be greater formality in the future.” Pardy also noted, “Nowhere in the documentation resulting from the two meetings are there suggestions the people of Canada will be provided with detailed information on which judgments can be made on the wisdom of this consensual agreement negotiated in the backrooms of both capitals.” Instead he cautioned that, “the troublesome details implicit in the agreement will be hidden behind the wall of national security.” Pardy argued that in the process, “Canada sold its national security independence in exchange for hoped-for minor changes to American border restrictions.” He concluded that, “It is not an overstatement to suggest the United States blackmailed the government of Canada into making this deal. It was the American way or no way.”

The Council of Canadians have also strongly rejected the new border deal. They have challenged the notion that, “proper privacy protections can be achieved between Canada and the U.S. without significantly diluting stronger Canadian laws and norms.” Citing privacy concerns associated with the U.S. Patriot Act, the organization emphasized that, “the proposed new entry-exit system for travellers needs the greatest scrutiny by Canadian parliamentarians, security and privacy experts.” The Council of Canadians also criticized, “the government for hiding behind a sham public consultation and implying that this should clear the way for implementation of the action plan.” In August, the Conservative government released two reports which summarized online public input received concerning regulatory cooperation, as well as perimeter security and economic competitiveness. While improving the movement of trade and travel was the priority for business groups, many individuals expressed concerns over the loss of sovereignty, along with the protection of personal information.

When it comes to regulatory convergence, Maude Barlow, national chairperson of the Council of Canadians agreed that, “Standardization can be a good thing when standards are high,” She conceded, “The problem is standards aren’t higher in the U.S. in many cases.” Barlow also acknowledged that, “Already Health Canada and other agencies consider harmonization with U.S. standards to be a more important consideration than the real safety of our food. This perimeter deal cements that skewed priority list.” There are fears that it could erode any independent Canadian regulatory capacity and weaken existing regulations. Part of the SPP agenda called for improving regulatory cooperation which resulted in Canada raising pesticide limits on fruits and vegetables. Regulatory integration threatens Canadian sovereignty and democracy. Further harmonization with the U.S. could result in Canada losing control over its ability to regulate food safety. This could also lead to a race to the bottom with respect to other regulatory standards.

By all accounts, big business is the winner in the new trade and security perimeter deal. Maude Barlow explained that, “this process has been set up to accommodate one sector of our community and that is big business.” In advance of the action plans being unveiled to the public, business stakeholders were briefed on the specifics. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, an organization that lobbies the government on behalf of Canada’s largest corporations has given it their stamp of approval. The U.S. and Canadian Chambers of Commerce also applauded the new vision for border and regulatory cooperation. When it comes to negotiations on the border security agreement, Barlow confirmed that, “the big business community was the only sector at the table with government and guided the process from the beginning.” This was also the case with the now defunct SPP. Big business was a driving force behind the initiative which led to the creation of the North American Competitiveness Council to ensure that corporate interests were being addressed.

In her article, Maude Barlow also warned that when it comes to the perimeter deal, “Canada is essentially giving up policy control in the key areas of privacy, security, immigration and surveillance in order to entice the U.S. to loosen controls at the border.” She stated, “it is likely to lead to a wholesale replacement of Canadian privacy and security standards with American ones, set by Homeland Security.” When it comes to information being collected and stored, Barlow questioned whether it will be, “used as a form of social control, to identify not terrorists, but activists and dissenters of government policy.” She insisted that, “We must call on our government to create a full public and Parliamentary debate before this deal becomes operational.” From the beginning, the whole process has lacked transparency with no congressional or parliamentary oversight. This has drawn comparisons to the SPP which was shrouded in secrecy and fueled by fears over the loss of sovereignty that finally led to its downfall. We can only hope that this latest endeavour will meet the same fate. With the 2012 U.S. election cycle about to get into full swing, the new bilateral deal could get lost in the shuffle.

While the perimeter agreement is being sold as vital to the safety and prosperity of Canadians and Americans alike, there is little doubt that it will mean a tradeoff between sovereignty and security. Any deal which gives the Department of Homeland Security more personal information poses a serious risk to privacy rights. As both countries move forward, perimeter security will be further defined and dominated by American interests. This could force Canada to comply with any new U.S. security measures, regardless of the dangers they may pose to civil liberties. A North American Homeland Security perimeter goes well beyond keeping people safe from any perceived threats. It is a means to secure trade, resources, as well as corporate interests and is a pretext for control over the continent. Ultimately, the U.S. wants the final say on who is allowed to enter and who is allowed to leave.