North American Union and the death of Canada

Canada is under attack by the New World Order, why does no one want to fight back?

In just over a month’s time, on August 20, the most powerful president in the world will be arriving in Montebello, Quebec for a two-day conference. President George W. Bush will be meeting with Stephen Harper and their Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderon. So far, the silence from the Canadian and American media has been deafening.

Talk to 90% of people on the street and they won’t know about this upcoming conference, and if by a slim chance they do, they won’t know the purpose of the meeting or why the leaders of Canada, United States and Mexico are meeting in the dog days of summer under what amounts to a veil of secrecy.

So, what’s this upcoming conference all about, and why are the newspapers, radio and television keeping silent about it?

The purpose of the upcoming conference is to ratify the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which was initiated by Bush, Martin and Fox in 2005 in Waco, Texas. Essentially, this so-called ‘partnership’ will result in what the politicians refer to as ‘continental integration’-newspeak for a North American Union- and basically a harmonization of 100’s of regulations, policies and laws.

In layman’s terms, it means that once this ‘partnership’ has been ratified which is a fait accompli; we will be following in the footsteps of the European Union. It will mean that Canada will become part of the North American Union by 2010, and that our resources, agricultural, health and environment issues, to name a few, will be controlled not by Canada, but by the government of the North American Union.

A huge ‘NAFTA’ highway, one quarter of a mile wide, is already being built in Texas, where private land is being expropriated, and will eventually reach the Manitoba border.
Water will be the ‘issue’ of this century, as more than 25 states in the U.S. are currently in desperate need. Where do you think they will get the water they need?

The United States is already guaranteed 60% of our natural gas resources from NAFTA, which mean that even during emergencies when we need energy, we will have to import it, while we are forced to export gas to the U.S. This is just one example of how Canada is being shortchanged, and it’s only going to get worse.

July 14 Reality Check Article



Following President Bush's historical visit to Ottawa in November 2004, the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched in March 2005 in Waco, Texas.

The ratification of the SPP is part of the agenda of the upcoming Montebello Summit, Quebec, on August 20th, thereby paving the way towards the formation of the North American Union (NAU).

There has been a deafening silence on this process: virtually no media coverage has been provided. No meaningful debate in the House Commons has occurred on a process which affects the future and very existence of Canada as a sovereign nation.

It is important to understand that this process of territorial integration under the proposed North American Union would embody Canada and Mexico into the US Homeland Security apparatus. Broadly speaking, Washington would set the agenda for integration and would exert an overriding influence in developing the legal, political, military and national security architecture of the proposed NAU. The latter is not comparable to the structures of the European Union, which retain the sovereignty of individual members states.

What is at stake is de facto annexation, where Canada and Mexico would cease to function as a sovereign nations, relegated to the status of US protectorates. Similarly, the US dollar would be imposed as a single North American currency (The Amero) with monetary powers vested in the US Federal Reserve system.

The Conservative government in Ottawa has not only embraced the SPP, it is also actively supporting the US war agenda, its national security agenda and its "Global War on Terrorism".

By endorsing a US-Canada-Mexico "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada also agrees to directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in all the US sponsored war and national security initiatives, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.

Under an integrated North American Military Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, including the use of tactical nuclear warheads as a means of self defense, which was ratified by the US Senate in December 2003.

Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, justice, law enforcement, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.

Global Research, originally published in November 2004 - 2004-11-23

Read More...

Summary only...

911: The Explosive Reality

Yet another shocking 9/11 documentary exposing the truth and level of puppetry that was exercised by the United States government, once again totally ignored by the mass media.

Read More...

Summary only...

Fears of war as Israel and Syria show army might

Concern is growing that Israel and Syria may be heading towards war, with signs that both are preparing their armies.

The preparations are being made across both sides of the ceasefire line in the Golan Heights area occupied by Israel since 1967.

Syria has increased troop numbers and brought in rocket units similar to those used by Hezbollah against Israel in last summer's war in Lebanon, according to intelligence estimates. The Syrians have also brought in new anti-aircraft guns and tanks from Russia and recently conducted a frontline exercise of troops.

Israel yesterday appointed a team of senior ministers to handle policy towards Syria, but denied it was a "war cabinet".

The move came just a day after Israeli troops held a widely publicised training exercise in which they captured what army officials described as a model of a Syrian village.

In an apparent attempt to reassure Damascus, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Omert, was quoted as telling the security cabinet yesterday: "Israel does not want a war with Syria and one needs to be careful about a scenario of miscalculation that leads to a security deterioration."

Amos Yadlin, the Israeli army intelligence chief, told Knesset MPs that "the Syrians have a lot to lose if a war breaks out". He said that the Syrian president, Bashar Assad, "has a regime, an airforce, civilian networks, an electricity network and civilian infrastructure: all of these are liable to be harmed in a war".

Since the war between Israel and Hezbollah, Mr Assad has expressed interest in resuming the talks with Israel that stalled seven years ago over the extent of an Israeli pullback in the Golan Heights, but he has also hinted that Syria might resort to force if Israel shunned diplomacy.

According to Israeli army intelligence, the Syrian army preparations are defensive and they also believe that Mr Assad does not want to initiate hostilities. Israel has been talking about war and peace simultaneously, albeit without embracing Mr Assad's offer of talks.

The defence minister, Amir Peretz, asked about the possibility of a conflict, said the army "must be ready to face degradation" on the Syrian front. He said that over the past ten months, Israel's military presence there had been beefed up on his orders. But he added: "This does not reflect aggressive intentions against Syria." He called for Israel to "do everything to check whether it is possible to open negotiations".

There has been concern in the security establishment that Israel's inability to achieve a clear victory against Hezbollah might have emboldened Syria to initiate hostilities on the Heights. David Kimche, a former Mossad official and director-general of the foreign ministry, said the aim of the Israeli army exercise was "to tell the Syrians 'don't even consider doing anything because we will be ready'."

read more...

Read More...

Summary only...

17,000 Marines Deployed to Gulf

Iran is prepared to withstand any foreign military attack and will repel decisively any form of aggression, Iranian media said Wednesday citing the country's defense minister.

"Islamic Iran will counter any threats from abroad using its Armed Forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, and will give a destructive response to enemies and aggressors," Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said.

His statement comes in light of U.S. naval maneuvers off Iran's coast as the United States Wednesday beefed up its military presence in the Gulf deploying two aircraft carriers and landing ships packed with some 17,000 Marines.

The U.S. has included Iran along with North Korea in President George W. Bush's "axis of evil," with Tehran consistently defying international calls to suspend uranium enrichment, which would bring it closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon, while Pyongyang tested a nuclear device in October 2006.

TEHRAN, May 23 (RIA Novosti)

Read More...

Summary only...

The War on Russia and China

Although Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Japan are not formally members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), they are linked through military partnerships, affiliated government agreements, a network of partnerships, and bilateral military agreements with the United States and Britain.

The creation of a parallel NATO-like organization in the Far East and the Pacific Rim is part of the international brinkmanship of creating a unified global military alliance. Ellen Bork, deputy executive director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and Gary Schmitt, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, have advocated the creation of a military network in Asia similar to NATO in a paper on South Korea written in December of 2006. [1] The PNAC is a US think-tank whose members include Dick Cheney, George W. Bush Jr., Richard Perle, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, Zalmay Khalilzhad, Richard Armitage, and Paul Wolfowitz.

The Militarization of Japan

“Japan and the NATO allies are facing the same threats.” (Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary-General)

Japan has gradually been amalgamating and harmonizing its military policies with those of the U.S. and NATO. Japan is deeply linked bilaterally and multilaterally to the U.S. military. Japan was controlled by the U.S. military for several years after the Second World War. In 1951 the Japanese government signed the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. This arrangement was expanded on January 19, 1960 with another bilateral treaty between Japan and the U.S. government.

Japan and South Korea are also both part of a grand U.S. military project involving the global stationing of missile systems and rapid military forces, as envisioned during the Reagan Administration. The global military project has been endorsed in Asia as a means to counter the alleged threat of a North Korean missile attack. China has also been identified as a justification for the development of a broad military alliance, involving an integrated military network in the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Rim.

The Japanese government has also signed its second ever bilateral security treaty with Australia to deepen security and military links. [2] Australia, under the Howard Government, is also heavily involved in military projects in the Asia-Pacific region and more specifically, in the context of a policy of encirclement, in the militarization of China’s eastern borders.

In January 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a visit to NATO Headquarters in Brussels, and made subsequent visits, meeting with the leaders of Germany and Britain. In essence, this was a visit to NATO as a whole and to the two separate and defining core branches of NATO, the Franco-German entente largely represented by Germany and the Anglo-American alliance, represented by Britain and the US. During the first trip by a Japanese leader to NATO Headquarters, the Japanese Prime Minister also pledged that Japan would work closely with NATO in Afghanistan. The continuation of an E.U. weapons embargo against China was also discussed. [3] Additionally, Japan already has military cooperation agreements with NATO.

In 1999, at a time of NATO enlargement and at the onslaught of NATO’s war against Yugoslavia, Japan and the U.S. launched the joint missile defense research program. [4] The Japanese government has also upgraded its Defence Agency into a full-fledged ministry constituting another breach of the Japanese Constitution. The Japanese government is also funding the deployment of the Patriot PAC-3 and the Aegis Standard Missile-3 (SM-3). Japan also allowed its territory to host U.S. military radar facilities linked to the global missile shield project. [5]

Japanese officials also want to revise the Japanese Constitution to allow Japan to formally join military alliances, such as NATO. The U.S., Australia, and NATO have been widely supportive of the Tokyo government’s resolve to militarize Japan.

The Japanese government is candidly in violation of Article 9 of the country's Constitution, which stipulates that Japan cannot have a military force. In this regard, the Japanese government has initiated a process to amend the Japanese Constitution, which would pave the way for the formal formation of a military force in Japan. Japan has already started developing its military capabilities and armed forces. These legislative moves are designed merely as a step to legalize the underlying initiative.

The Japanese government has pushed forward its militarization agenda despite the fact that the majority of Japanese citizens are opposed to the militarization of their country. Legislation is now being passed through the Japanese Parliament that will allow the Japanese government to rewrite the Japanese Constitution. According to the Japanese Prime Minister this will allow Japan to “remove its limits on collective self-defence and on helping allies under attack.” [6]

Australia and the tightening of the Military Alliance in the Asia-Pacific Perimeter

Australia and Japan have established close military cooperation ties since the Cold War. Australian troops have integrated military operations and missions in Anglo-American occupied Iraq, together with Japanese troops, categorized as “non-combatant personnel.”

Australia and its government, led by Prime Minister John Howard, are members of the Anglo-American alliance and full party to their global military project. From the beginning, the Australian government has been in step with the Anglo-American alliance in the military roadmap unfolding under the banner of the “Global War on Terror.” Australian troops are deployed in the Balkans, Anglo-American occupied Iraq, and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

The military forces of Singapore train in Australia. Australian special forces also actively operate in Southeast Asia and the Australian Navy has ships positioned from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and Pacific Ocean. Since December 2003, Australia has been a participant in the occupation of Iraq, is a partner in the international U.S. missile shield project, and has been a military research partner of the United States. [7]

Australia also has a role to play in crafting a military challenge to China. Australia has finalized a pact with Japan that is stronger than any of Japan’s defence ties with any country, aside from the United States. At the same time, Australia has entrenched itself further into the Anglo-American camp with the building of a new U.S. military base in Geraldton. Geraldton is in Western Australia, located underneath Indonesia and Malaysia, and faces East Africa and the Middle East from a distance. The new facility in Geraldton is on the Australian shores of the Indian Ocean. This military base follows three years of secret negotiations between the U.S. government and the Australian government. The military base is reported to provide an important link for a new network of international military satellites that will be used by the United States and its allies to fight wars in the Middle East and Asia. [8]

“I think the agreement is really looking at a realignment of security in East Asia, particularly with the ever-present rise of China,” said the head of the Asia security programme at the Royal United Services Institute in London. [9] The Indian Ocean is going to become militarized because of Chinese attempts to ensure the continuous flow and security of African and Middle Eastern energy supplies to China.

North Korea, China, and Russia are being demonized to justify the deepening military integration of Australia, Japan and several other Asia-Pacific nations with the United States and NATO. Isabel Reynolds an international correspondent in Japan reveals in an article for Reuters that the tightening security and military atmosphere in Japan and Australia is aimed at China and Russia;

“Whether or not there is an overt threat, Japan and the so-called ‘littoral allies’ [meaning countries such as the Philippines, Taiwan, and Singapore] in the region have got to address that,” he [military analyst Tetsuya Ozeki] added.

North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests last year are a source of worry, and China’s shooting down of one of its own satellites with a ballistic missile in January [2007] aroused concern in many capitals.

“We are no longer in an age when either Japan or Australia can rely solely on the United States as an ally,” said military analyst Tetsuya Ozeki, who says both China and Russia are set to become equally influential in the region.” [10]

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, dismissed concerns that the depending alliance between Australia and Japan would harm ties with China. [11]

There are aggressive steps being undertaken by NATO and the U.S. to encircle Russia and China. What the agreement between Australia and Japan (along with the move by the Tokyo government to amend the Japanese Constitution) amounts to, is the formation of an Eastern flank against Russia and China and a parallel sister-alliance to NATO.

read more...

Global Research by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Read More...

Summary only...

Canada and the World Order After the Wreckage

Often in Canada we find ourself detached from world events and from issues that don't seem have any direct effect on our lives. Our fishbowl view of the world is doing more harm to our futures than we can imagine, slowly but surely individuals are coming forward that need our undivided attention for the sake of our survival in this world.
- TheBoilingPoint

The active imagining of an alternate global politics could hardly be more pressing. Mounting global inequalities, the turbulence of climate change, and recurring military interventions by Western powers have been the daily fare of the neoliberal world order. This world order was constructed over the last two decades under the hegemony of the U.S., in alliance with key European, Japanese and Canadian allies.

The American objective has been the reassertion of its primacy amongst states. The 'Washington consensus' of the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO, has helped re-establish the economic foundations of American power, while integrating its allies in a shared project of liberalising markets. New American security doctrines, American and NATO military and diplomatic interventions to initiate regime changes in wayward states, and the proliferation of American military bases around the world, have all redrawn geopolitical alliances. In line with U.S. 'grand strategy', American unilateralism now occupies the space left by the decline of the Cold War division.

The political period since the American 'coalition of the willing' intervention into the Middle and Far East, beginning in 2001, has also exposed cracks in American hegemony. The Doha trade round has stalled; the U.S. dollar overhang and current account deficit reveal unresolved economic problems; and the U.S. occupation of Iraq has become a quagmire both militarily and politically for the Bush Administration.

These events, however, have yet to displace U.S. primacy in the world order. Indeed, it is altogether fanciful to speak as if the arc of U.S. power is now in perpetual decline and that a splintered geopolitical order now governs world affairs. It is still the foremost task of the global social justice movement to turn the cracks in American hegemony into open fissures to allow the space for an alternate world order to emerge.

Canada and the Neoliberal World Order

Canada has proven to be a bulwark in support of American imperial objectives. Canada played a crucial role as a supportive imperial power in establishing the Washington institutions and the GATT, as well in building Western military alliances such as NATO and NORAD, over the postwar period. Canada undertook this role by ideologically stressing the role of 'middle powers' and diplomatically supporting multilateralism via the U.S. dominated United Nations Security Council and system. Since the 1980s, the Canadian state and ruling classes have pulled Canada closer into the U.S. sphere, symbolized initially by the spineless decision of the Trudeau government to allow cruise missile testing in Canada. Since then Canada has given consistent support, in the form of peacekeeping operations or military deployments, to U.S. military and diplomatic interventions, as in Somalia, Haiti, and others. Canada has also played a pivotal role in the 'quartet' of countries setting the WTO trade agenda, and as the staunchest supporter of U.S. policies toward Latin America.

While the Jean Chretien Liberals kept Canada out of the Iraq war, he also contributed to making Canada the third largest participant in the American 'war on terror' since September 2001 (symbolically re-affirming the North Atlantic triangle partnership between the U.S., Britain and Canada, that dominated global politics across the 20th century). The subsequent joint Smart Borders Agreement and the tripartite North American Security and Prosperity Partnership further integrated Canada into American geopolitical strategies. Together, these measures have all but dissolved whatever independence Canadian foreign policy had exercised.

None of the Canadian political parties propose a fundamental departure from the neoliberal world order. The Conservatives under Stephen Harper, and the Liberals under Paul Martin and now Stephan Dion, actively define Canada's international position as support of American power. The NDP and the Greens depart from them in their emphasis on working through multilateral institutions. Or, over the form of Canadian imperial interventions, such as the NDP contentions on how Canadian troops and funds in Afghanistan might best be put to use. But it is an utter illusion to suggest that a 'Liberal-Green-NDP' alliance would break from the neoliberal world order and Canada's supine relation to the American empire...

read more...

YORK U. Prof. Greg Albo - Global Research

Read More...

Summary only...

They Wouldn’t Really Attack Iran, Would They?

"U.S. citizens should begin building a serious Left and anti-imperial movement aiming to replace dominant domestic structures of Empire and Inequality with egalitarian institutions of justice, equality and peace."
- Shiftshapers

Remember the old neoconservative half-joke that “sacking Baghdad is fine but real men go to Teheran?” We are moving into the time when many Washington watchers have thought it possible and even likely that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would order an attack on Iran.

They wouldn’t really do it, would they?

God knows there are a large number of reasons for a rational White House NOT to attack. United States and global public opinion is opposed to a U.S. assault on Iran. So are European and other leading and allied governments, the U.S. intelligence community and much of the nation’s military leadership. According to a February 25th London Times report, “most senior [United States] commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a strike against Iran”.

Key sections of the U.S. foreign policy establishment oppose attacking Iran. The Baker-Hamilton Commission’s Iraq Study Group advocated engaging Iran diplomatically to help de-escalate the mess in Iraq and the Middle East.

Expressing concerns that the administration will manufacture false pretexts for attacking Iran, former National Security Advisor Zgbniew Bzrezinski recently told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bush’s “imperial hubris” is “undermining America’s global legitimacy,” “intensifying regional instability” and putting the U.S on track for a “quagmire lasting 20 years or more and eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan”

more...

Read More...

Summary only...

The War Party targets the Kremlin

The hate campaign against Vladimir Putin's Russia is really quite extraordinary, not only on account of its relentless ferocity but also because of its brazen reliance on rumor, exaggeration, and – all too often – utter falsehood. Take this piece by Cathy Young, recently downsized out of her longtime perch at the Boston Globe and relegated to the relatively obscure pages of Reason magazine, wherein she retails the latest anti-Russian hysterics:

"In March, Putin signed a decree merging two existing federal agencies – one for media oversight and the protection of culture, the other for telecommunications monitoring – into a single body, the Federal Service for the Oversight of Mass Communications and Protection of Cultural Heritage. It is perhaps no accident that the Russian word for 'oversight' used in the agency's name, nadzor, has a somewhat sinister ring for a Russian speaker: It commonly refers to the supervision of a prisoner. The new agency, which will start its work in about three months, will oversee and license broadcasters, the print media, and websites."

So, have any Russian Web sites been closed down? Well, um, no: it's just that some "Russian journalists have expressed strong concerns about this move, which they see as consolidating government control over the media." Yes, but what has actually occurred, aside from a bureaucratic "consolidation" of government agencies? Answer: nothing. Oh, to be sure, there is a lot of speculation that this could be preparation for the Russian government exerting control over the Internet:

"Roman Bodanin, editor of the political website gazeta.ru – which got an official warning for 'extremism' last year after writing about the Muhammad cartoons controversy – and Raf Shakirov, former editor of the daily Izvestia, who was sacked…"

Ah yes, sacked – another disgruntled journalist, discarded by his employer. He couldn't possibly have an agenda that has affected his objectivity, now could he? As for that warning about "extremism" – Russia is hardly alone in having laws against "extremist" rhetoric and other forms of "hate speech," but for some reason I don't think we'll see Young speak out against any of these legislative infringements on free speech any time soon.

more...

Global Research Articles by Justin Raimondo

Read More...

Summary only...

U.S. Air Shield causes Russia to up Strategic Offensive Arms

U.S. plans to expand its air shield closer to Russia will provoke Moscow to increase its strategic offensive arms, Russia's envoy to the United Nations said Tuesday.

In January, the U.S. announced plans to deploy elements of its anti-ballistic missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland as a shield against possible strikes from North Korea and Iran, which are involved in long-running disputes with the international community over their nuclear programs. Russia, which has long been anxious about the opening of NATO bases in former Communist-bloc countries and ex-Soviet republics, has strongly criticized the plans as a national security threat and a destabilizing factor for Europe.

"The philosophy is clear - increasing air defense missiles by one side causes the other side to augment its strategic offensive arms," Vitaly Churkin told a UN disarmament committee.

He said Russia cannot consider the U.S. air defense program as an exceptionally defensive move. "It is breaking a global strategic balance and creating first-strike capabilities," the diplomat said.

Churkin also criticized the admittance of former Warsaw Pact countries to NATO as a violation of key provisions of international agreements on armaments.

Russia's concerns rose with a statement by a senior Pentagon official in March that air defense elements could also be deployed in the South Caucasus. Moscow believes it could be Georgia, whose pro-Western President Mikheil Saakashvili has been on bad terms with Moscow since coming to power in 2003.

read more...

UNITED NATIONS (New York), April 11 (RIA Novosti)

Read More...

Summary only...

Cold War Shivers: New Russian Nuclear Submarine

Russia`s Deputy Prime Minister has announced the launch of a new strategic nuclear submarine, it would be the first launch since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

“This is the first time in 17 years that we are building such a submarine. Another year will be needed to technically equip it in water and to arm it,” Ivanov was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency.

The nuclear submarine, named Yuri Dolgoruki, will carry Russia’s latest inter-continental missiles, the Bulava-M, which went into production last year.

The naval Bulava ballistic missiles are equipped with 10 nuclear warheads that have a reach of 4,970 miles. The new vessel will be launched on Sunday into the White Sea from the Severodvinsk naval base in northwestern Russia. According to Ivanov Russia plans to build three other submarines of the same kind, two of them the Alexander Nevski and the Vladimir Monomakh are already under construction.

Global Research - MosNews

Read More...

Summary only...