I have a lot more photos from the protest here, so check them out.
The media can’t really explain it. The governments of three countries have been very vague about it, to the point where most elected representatives don’t know what it is. And yet, some people seem rather upset about it.
Until a few days ago, when mass protests around the Three Amigos’ summit in Montebello, Québec, forced the media to pay a bit of attention, most people in the three affected countries had not heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). Even the alternative media and the blogosphere is suspiciously quiet—probably because it’s hard to both find information about the issue and to explain it in the convenient soundbytes and talking points to which we’re all accustomed. Thomas D’Aquino, of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, describes the content of the talks (which have been taking place for the last two years) as: “quite important but frankly quite boring.”
We wouldn’t want to bore the people whose lives are likely to be radically changed by this thing. That’s why you’re not being consulted—in fact, your elected representatives aren’t even being consulted. Only the top military brass, corporate elite, and national leaders need to be concerned. Don’t you worry your pretty little head about it. After all, don’t they always have your best interests at heart?
This is why I don’t believe in most conspiracy theories, incidentally. There’s no need for them. If your leaders are planning something distasteful for you—say, treaties or agreements that would attack your health and environment, strip what little labour protection you currently enjoy, curtail your freedom of movement, and embroil you in illegal wars—they don’t need to invent elaborate means to hide it from you. They can simply bury the issues in alphabet soup, discuss their plans in remote locations, and tell you that it’s too boring for you to need to read about.
Anyway, the 5,000 or so people who converged in Ottawa yesterday evidently didn’t find the subject boring at all. I was there, participating in the rally, march, and teach-in meant to tell the world about what’s going on today and tomorrow in Montebello. I was terribly impressed at the ability of the organizing groups—particularly the Council of Canadians—to accomplish what our media and politicians couldn’t do; namely, explain what the SPP is and why we should all care.
I took the bus to Ottawa with a group of other protesters—some of them hardened activists, but many quite new to the whole thing, and cleverly, the folks organizing the buses used the five-hour trip to cram everyone’s brain with as much knowledge as possible. One publication that got passed around was the CoC’s Behind Closed Doors, and you should really read it, download the PDFs, and print it out to show to your friends and family. For an even more concise summary, read up on the five reasons to oppose the SPP. It’s vital that we decode the language of trade and security talks; the reason why this is hushed up is because if the average person understood the implications, he or she would be understandably upset.
Talks on the SPP began in March 2005, and have included business and military leaders, but not the public. “NAFTA with guns” actually describes the content pretty well—the idea is to create a favourable climate for big business and build a “Fortress North America,” bringing the defense and security policies of Canada and Mexico in line with the U.S. The big issues are energy, borders, foreign policy, and health/environmental regulations.
Essentially, Canada and Mexico are being told that, in order to remain favourable trading partners with the U.S., they’re going to have to give up some autonomy. One boring example has to do with health standards. Right now, Canada has tighter restrictions on pesticides than the U.S. does. “Harmonization” would mean that everyone would have to have the same restrictions. The standards would focus on competitiveness—a race to the bottom—rather than on food safety. Similarly, the U.S. would like to “harmonize” security, drawing Canada and Mexico into the war on terror through NORAD commitments, border and immigration controls, and co-ordinated no-fly lists.
It’s a bad deal for most of us. Amusingly, the fearless leaders in Montebello will be exposed to dissent only by watching it on TV, showing exactly how transparent and accountable they really are. Do yourself a favour: Start reading, start talking, and start protesting. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment was scrapped because people found out about it; there’s no reason why this fight isn’t winnable once we start raising our voices.
So let me get this straight:
Canada and Mexico promise to dance to the U.S.’s fiddler with respect any matter that can be said to affect cross-border trade and/or security, be it the acceptable level of goo in our pesticides or the tariffs on lumber. In return the States will … keep trading with Canada and Mexico?
And what happens if Canada and Mexico decide not to dance that jig? The States will take its trade money elsewhere? The States will stop playing nice, and start imposing tarriffs and stuff, like it never does now? Everyone in Canada and Mexico will starve, victims of corporate downsizing as U.S. consumers take their dollars to cheaper, third-world suppliers in India?
Because that never happens now.
Tell me again what we gain from the SPP?
I’m not sure why the threat of the U.S. taking its toys and leaving the sandbox is such a big threat. For one thing, they never seem to make good on the threat; it would inevitably hurt them too. And for another thing, it might be to the benefit of both Canada and especially Mexico to generate more of an internal market rather than focusing on exports, given the likelihood of a massive fuel crisis in the next 10 or 20 years.
I’m not an economist, but we currently export 63% of the oil we produce, and import 40% of the oil we use. This seems incredibly inefficient, having everything to do with securing America’s oil supply and nothing to do with meeting our own needs. I’m not sure what the figures look like for Mexico (their industry is nationalized), but I know that there’s a history of orienting the agricultural industry towards exports while the local population starves that various progressive movements have sought to reverse.
We don’t gain anything from the SPP. Neither does Mexico. Neither do most Americans. There are certain continental matters that ought to be harmonized—Mexican trade unions have started calling for a continental minimum wage, which I very much support—but you can bet that those things aren’t going to be on the agenda in Montebello.
I’ve always thought that if someone tells you Topic X is too boring for most people to think about, hold onto your wallet.
I’m not sure why the threat of the U.S. taking its toys and leaving the sandbox is such a big threat.
My point, exactly.
Oh, and Mexico gains the right to send more if its underemployed labour force to Canada to work in conditions that Canadians won’t tolerate, I’m sure.
As you suggest in one of your comments, I’d welcome something like the SPP if it meant harmonizing strong environmental and labor regulations across North America. It would be an interesting little project to come up with a set of counter-proposals along these lines.
“I’m not sure why the threat of the U.S. taking its toys and leaving the sandbox is such a big threat.”
Really? Let’s think about it for at least two seconds.
For Canada, it makes sense to trade as much as possible with a country 10 times its size and far richer per capita. The only thing Canada does particularly well is exploit its natural resources, like oil, soft wood lumber, fish, etc. They can sell to 30 million Canadians, or to 300 million Americans. It’s not a tough choice.
For Mexico, it’s a similar deal, with the added bonus, as someone already mentioned, of exporting their own poor to the US to take crap jobs away from poor Americans. If the 11 million Mexicans showed up in Mexico and demanded jobs they’d be SOL. Again, not a tough choice.
Okay, yeah, but U.S. industries generally need Canadian resources, as much as Canadian industries need the U.S. market. Yes, the U.S. could get its drinking water, oil, electricity, softwood lumber and pulp and paper, and, I guess nickel. It’s still cheaper for these U.S. industries to get resources from Canada than from anyplace else, unless they can grow them at home. And if they can grow them at home, Canada still can’t compete.
I did not mention Mexicans working American jobs. I was referring specifically to the Canadian Seasonal Migrant Labour programme, whereby Canadian farmers hire Mexican labourers to work in seasonal agricultural jobs in Canada. And yeah, the Mexican government is right behind this programme, and quite willing to turn a blind eye to poor labour conditions, exploitation, and bad faith dealing by Canadian farmers, because it’s really useful to it to have those workers earning Canadian dollars for their families in Mexico, rather than being poor and underemployed in Mexico. I can see how this would seem to benefit the Mexican government, and I know the arguments for how it benefits the Canadian economy, but I disagree with them. All it does is increase the profit margins for agro-business, and keep agro-business unencumbered by the pesky labour regulations that affect other businesses.
Hello,
I looked at your terrific SPP Protest phoset on flickr. If you have the time and it’s not too much trouble, could you send me a copy of the original photo you titled ‘mexicanwrestler’ ? Any other views of that would also be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
See ya
John, I’d be happy to, but I don’t have your e-mail.