Wednesday, May 31, 2006

NAU, fact or fiction?

NAU “North American Union”.
There has been some talk, mostly rumors loosely based on finely filtered official press releases that the leaders of Mexico (Fox), US (Bush) and Canada (Martin) discussed more than what is recorded in the official transcripts. The "official report" states that the meeting in March '05 in Waco at Baylor University was to revitalize NAFTA and shore up a few associated issues. The rumor has it that informal discussions were held to explore the possibility of forming an “EU” style cooperative entity. This scheme involves more than just a free trade association like NAFTA. It encompasses open borders with free and open migration for citizens of all three countries, formation of a “union” parliamentary style government with a new “constitution” and all the administrative trappings (like a combined military force and judicial and executive powers and sovereignty). New currency would be introduced such as the “pesolar” as the dollar and peso would be phased out.
While I cannot find any corroborating news features on this rumor in the MSM, I can file this under the heading of “sheer speculation”.
I don’t think the public is ready to accept something like this at this time. Some of us might object due to nationalistic pride.
If it happened in Europe, why not here?
It does, however, place recent governmental activity in perspective. Some curious news events recently would lend some credence to this rumor. (1) The Bush administration having to be literally forced by outraged citizens on both sides of the aisle to act on the border issue. (2) The "elites" in the Senate want a "watered-down" border settlement with amnesty for illegal aliens claiming the term "illegal" does not apply to them. (3) The Mexican government’s recent focus on strengthening their southern border.
Can this rumor be credible?


Renegade Eye said...

Discussing something is different than acting. All three are limited by nationalism.

The border issues are election year politics.

roman said...

Yeah, you're right. Nationalism is a great stumbling block to resolving many of the world's inequity problems. No wonder we are inundated from early on to national patriotism through the way history and civics was presented to us. The political machines of nation states insure the survival of the state. It creates a mindset that makes it almost counter intuitive to think globally instead of nationally.

Pete's Blog said...


I agree - as a non North American the idea sounds bizarre.

The EU is one thing (with several countries (Germany, France, UK and Italy) roughly equal in power) but a NAU would the "combine" the world's only superpower with a mere middle ranking power and a developing country. This is roughly equivalent to combining Germany to Belgium and Kazakstan.

Also the economic implications of diluting the world's dominant currency (US$) into the "pesolar" would undermine many world financial markets and the dollar using oil market.

So renegade may indeed be right.

An election gimmick.


P.S. Thanks for your comments on my latest blog post :)

Vman said...

The elites in the senate? Bush, himself doesn't want tough borders he wants amnesty. And I would hate to see America take in an impoverished Mexico with huge drug problems and corruption in return for virtually nothing.

roman said...

Since Mexico is almost a 3'rd world country, we here in the states would have to endure hardships, that's for sure. I don't think anyone (outside of President Fox) is in favor of this scheme.

Pete's Blog said...

I say NO to the creation of an Amerexican-Canuckistan. See Potfry's groundbreaking June 9 report on the plight of American Immigrants in Mexico

Pete ;-)

roman said...

I would'nt mind being an illegal alien in Can-Cun, Mexico. Especially during the months of January and February.

The Potfry piece is hillarious.

beatroot said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.