What is the North American Union?
Today we're going to put on our cheap suits, stick earpieces
in, and join the legions of multinational Secret Service agents flowing out
among the populace of Canada, the United States, and Mexico; as the borders
disappear and we round up a unified population into forced socialism under
martial law in our gigantic new pan-continental police state. Some believers say
this takeover is actually already underway; others reckon the plans are still
being laid, but few believers doubt that it's in the works. The ultimate goal,
according to the rumors, is for the few elite in the new government to enjoy
unprecedented power, control, and profit over a new super-massive mega-state, at
the expense of half a billion workers forced into socialized labor. This new
police mega-state will be called the North American Union, or NAU.
One common theme in the conspiracy rumor is that anytime
something bad happens for real, it's generally viewed by the believers as a
deliberate attack by the American government upon its own people, as part of
this active, ongoing process. 9/11 is the most obvious example; the conspiracy
community believes nearly absolutely that 9/11 was perpetrated by the
government, in part as an excuse to increase domestic control in preparation
for the NAU takeover. When Hurricane Katrina killed over 1,800 people in 2005,
some in the conspiracy community took it as an actual practice exercise by FEMA
to round up thousands of young men and execute them in the swamp. Even the 2010
explosion of the oil rig Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill was
described by some as a deliberate attack, with the dual goals of damaging the
local economies and reaping huge profits for the government insiders through
stock manipulation.
One piece of evidence the believers claim proves that the
NAU takeover is underway is a new monetary unit to replace the dollar, called
the amero (obviously patterned after the euro used in the European Union). It
should be stressed at this point that all known examples of actual amero bills
or coins have been proven to be hoaxes; there is no such thing (so far as we
know) as actual amero currency. But conspiracy theorists can be well excused
for suspecting that an amero is in the works. After all, the euro certainly
became a reality in Europe; therefore the amero might well happen here, so they
reason.
However, comparisons between the amero and the euro, or the
North American Union and the European Union, do not hold much water. The euro
was first planned as a solution to a number of problems unique to Europe, where
there were many small countries who necessarily had to do large amounts of
business among one another; but with all their own separately fluctuating
currencies, there were all sorts of problems. Foreign investment was
unnecessarily complicated and troublesome, exchange was inefficient and costly,
interest rates were unpredictable, and various inflation rates made every
transaction a shot in the dark. When the euro was introduced, participating
countries had to meet certain requirements of stability. Since its
introduction, studies have found that it was tremendously successful in
addressing the problems. As of 2006, the European Central Bank estimated that
the euro increased trade among member nations by 5-10%, and later estimates
show that this trend has only continued to improve.
North American countries, by contrast, do not have anywhere
near the currency-related problems that Europe faced before the euro. We simply
don't have an unmanageable number of international transactions suffering from
fluctuating exchange rates and expensive conversions. Mexico suffered these
problems historically, but when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
was signed in 1994, it had a rocky start, but followed by a hugely stabilizing
effect on Mexico's economy and ever since, their problems have been largely
mitigated. Arguably, NAFTA has addressed many of the issues for North Americans
that Europeans solved with the euro. We just had those problems on a far
smaller scale, and so our fix was correspondingly less drastic.
But that doesn't mean nobody's ever proposed an amero.
There's been talk of it for a long time, mainly from a small number of Canadian
economists. Quebec is one faction in North America that would actually benefit
from an amero, and Mexico is probably the other. But since the United States
and the majority of Canada would not, the amero is unlikely to ever proceed
beyond the ruminations of these few authors.
In the real world, the introduction of an amero would
probably have real benefits for a few, but none for the majority. Historically,
the amero's proponents have been Quebec and Mexico. Quebec's perspective is an
interesting one. They have a certain degree of French-Canadian nationalism, and
being part of Canada and tied to its currency rubs this nationalism the wrong
way. If they shared an amero with everyone else in North America, it would make
them less dependent on Canada economically and freer to trade directly with the
United States. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox expressed his desire for an
amero openly, on multiple occasions, as a natural followup to NAFTA. Such
economic unions often confer more benefit upon those at the bottom of the food
chain that those at the top. Mexico would benefit from increased stability, while
Canada and the United States would lose control of their own inflation and
interest rates.
Canadian professor of economics Herb Grubel wrote a 1999
paper for the Canadian think tank The Fraser Institute called The Case for the
Amero, but in it he admitted that his arguments were probably less important to
the governments of Canada and the United States than the need to maintain
control over their own monetary independence. The other most significant
proponent has been Dr. Robert Pastor, professor of political science and former
national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter. In his 2001 book Toward
a North American Community, he pointed out the benefits of an amero for Latin
America, but failed to convince very many people that it had any benefits for
the United States. He did admit in the book that an amero was unlikely to
happen, and has said that he absolutely does not support a North American
Union.
So with academic and economic expertise in agreement that
neither a North American Union nor even an amero make much sense, what support
remains? Well, unfortunately, it's really just of the conspiracy theory
variety, drawing its evidence from misinterpretations and exaggerations of
actual events.
One such actual event feeding the conspiracy theory is a
group formed by businessmen and academics from Canada, the United States, and
Mexico called the Independent Task Force on North America. It's sponsored by
nonprofit think tanks from all three nations. Created in 2004 in a post-9/11,
post-NAFTA world, it advocates closer economic and security cooperation among
the three nations, generally all good ideas. They do not advocate either an
amero or a North American Union, all of their reports are freely available, and
there's no secrecy attached to anything they do. Nevertheless, some conspiracy
theorists consider their existence to be proof that the North American Union is
already happening.
A similar, but more official, group was called the Security
and Prosperity Partnership of North America, formed in 2005 by Vicente Fox,
George W. Bush, and Paul Martin, who met for dialog for essentially these same
purposes, and was active through 2009. It included no treaties or agreements.
The US website for the SPP says in its "Myth vs. Fact" section:
...The SPP seeks to make the United States, Canada and
Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not
change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the
United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers
the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency.
But nevertheless, you can say this up and down and standing
on your head; the diehard conspiracy theorists dismiss such a statement as just
another part of the coverup. Notably, in June of 2006, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs
described the SPP, on the air, as an agreement (which it wasn't) to actually
form the North American Union without the consent of Congress (which it
didn't).
...The Bush administration is pushing ahead with a plan to
create a North American Union with Canada and Mexico. You haven't heard about that?
Well, that's because Congress hasn't been consulted, nor the American people.
Dobbs is not the only one. Believers all across the Internet
say "Hey, it happened in Europe; it can happen here in North
America." The European Union is indeed a reality, so by that example, it's
plausible that a North American Union could happen as well, right? The European
Union is actually not a real-world precedent for what the North American Union
is believed to be. The EU is primarily an economic union. All the member
nations in the EU are still sovereign nations, holding their own independent
elections and issuing their own passports, and no European citizens are being
forced into labor camps or executed by the millions. Conversely, the claims
about the North American Union have the United States, Canada, and Mexico
merged into a single police state characterized by brutality and forced
socialism.
The former Soviet Union would be a closer precedent, but
still not a very good one. It was a police state characterized by brutality and
forced socialism, but there are two very important points to heed. First, the
Soviet Union was the result of a popular uprising by the people, the Russian
Revolution; it was not a secret takeover by hidden Illuminati intent on
deceiving the masses. The Bolsheviks were a majority party, and there was
nothing secret about them. Second, the Soviet Union didn't last, and remains a
dramatic example of why such a union is a bad idea for everyone; not just for
the people, but for everyone hoping to benefit from it.
Like all conspiracy theories that claim to predict future
events, the North American Union requires reliance on supposition and
irrational dismissal of evidence. Anyone who thinks the United States is likely
to give up its sovereignty has, shall I say politely, "lost a few tiles on
re-entry." Ask healthy questions and maintain a healthy skepticism; but if
you catch yourself departing a little too far afield, take it as a red flag and
point your skeptical eye at yourself as well.
See you all tomorrow.
Buh-bye.
Comments
Post a Comment