|
Off The Fence - Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) trade agreement dies
Susan Thompson
for Smoky River Express
Most people have never heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Too bad, because we should all be celebrating its recent death.
The governments of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. signed the SPP in Waco, Texas back in March 2005. The SPP was a so-called NAFTA-plus agreement, or an agreement meant to make trade even more “free” by creating a so-called “deep” integration between all three countries.
This meant we were supposed to to start defining ourselves not as Canadian or U.S. or Mexican citizens, but instead, as North Americans.
If that sounds surprising, it should. We were all slowly losing our national sovereignty and identity, and by and large we had no idea. Most media outlets reported very little about the agreement, and there was no attempt at a public consultation or debate about it. It wasn’t an election issue. Most of our elected Members of Parliament weren’t even kept informed of the agreements progress.
Only the leaders of the three countries met to discuss it, at the so-called “Three Amigos” summits.
Yet it was a far-reaching agreement. All three countries agreed to adopt the same policies throughout the continent. The SPP included plans for a continental resource pact, energy sector integration, and a potential common external tariff.
Even if most of us had never heard of the agreement, it also directly affected our lives. For example, in 2007 the SPP agreement to harmonize rules on pesticide residues forced Canada to change its rules to allow higher levels of pesticides in our food. It was the SPP that led to the creation of the notoriously problematic “no-fly” lists, preventing people from flying on commercial flights if their name happened to match the name of someone the U.S. considered a possible security threat.
Here at home in Alberta, plans to increase tar sands production five-fold were part of the SPP, because the U.S. saw Alberta’s oil as key to their own energy security.
The SPP also meant supporting the U.S.-led war on terror, all in exchange for some vague promises of continued market access for the continent’s largest corporations.
Those people who did know about the SPP (like me) worried it eroded our democratic right and ability to make decisions. There were large protests organized by left-wing groups at SPP meetings. During the last federal election, the Canadian Action Party (CAP) made ending the SPP one of its key platform issues. Right-wing pundits in the U.S. also argued against the agreement, saying (and on this I don’t actually agree) it would allow more Mexican immigrants to take U.S. jobs.
Ultimately, what public pressure there was seems to have worked, at least now that Obama’s in office. At the last “Three Amigos” meeting in Guadalajara on August 10, the SPP was quietly kaiboshed. The official SPP website now says it’s “no longer an active initiative.” The website is only remaining up for archive purposes.
That’s great news for Canadian democracy. Rather than having an unelected group of multinational CEOs make decisions for all of North America (the North American Competitiveness Council or NACC), and then expecting our elected leaders to simply put those decisions into action, we now have the opportunity to make our own democratic decisions again.
Too bad no one knows about it.
The SPP or its evil twin might be resurrected, after all. In their parting statement in Mexico, Harper, Obama and Calderon were still talking about common North American policy, despite having let the SPP finally die.
“We build our collaboration on the understanding that our deepening ties are a source of strength and that challenges and opportunities in one North American country can and do affect us all,” they said in their joint statement.
You read that right. One North American country.
Sounds like the principles of the SPP are still in place, even if the agreement isn’t.
Fortunately, the leaders also made one other new announcement. They said they’d finally set up public consultations on agreements to create “deep integration.” That’s never happened before. If it happens now, we’ll all have the chance to get informed and finally have a say in whether we want any future NAFTA-plus agreements or not.
Personally, I’m voting not.
< Previous
Home
Next >
|
