Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

“It’s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites,” said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

“Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?” he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. “We don’t know the answers because the government doesn’t want to even announce the plan,” he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.

He said the agreement is “benign” and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

“But there’s no agreement to allow troops to come in,” he said. “It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The ‘allow’ piece is entirely up to the two governments.”

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a “North American union” where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

“Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!” notes one website. “The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,’ don’t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember - Canadian military aren’t bound by posse comitatus.”

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn’t been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

Canwest News Service | David Pugliese | Friday, February 22, 2008

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

“It’s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites,” said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

“Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?” he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. “We don’t know the answers because the government doesn’t want to even announce the plan,” he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.

He said the agreement is “benign” and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

“But there’s no agreement to allow troops to come in,” he said. “It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The ‘allow’ piece is entirely up to the two governments.”

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a “North American union” where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

“Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!” notes one website. “The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,’ don’t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember - Canadian military aren’t bound by posse comitatus.”

Posse comitatus is a U.S. law that prohibits the use of federal troops from conducting law enforcement duties on domestic soil unless approved by Congress.

Scanlon said there was no intent to keep the agreement secret on the Canadian side of the border. He noted it will be reported on in the Canadian Forces newspaper next week and that publication will be put on the Internet.

Scanlon said the actual agreement hasn’t been released to the public as that requires approval from both nations. That decision has not yet been taken, he added.

Canada | David Pugliese | February 22, 2008

Barack Obama: I will repair our relationship with Mexico

Under George W. Bush, the United States has not lived up to its historic role as a leader in the Western Hemisphere. As president, I will restore that leadership by working to advance the common prosperity and security of all of the people of the Americas. That work must begin with a renewed strategic partnership with Mexico.Mr. Bush took office vowing to make the Americas a top priority. But over the last seven years, the administration’s approach to this issue has been clumsy, disinterested and, above all, distracted by the war in Iraq. Indeed, relations have not fully recovered since Mexico refused to fall in line with President Bush’s rush to war.

Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon just traveled across the United States but didn’t even go to Washington, which isn’t that surprising given how little Mr. Bush has done to improve relations.

Starting my first year in office, I will convene annual meetings with Mr. Calderon and the prime minister of Canada. Unlike similar summits under President Bush, these will be conducted with a level of transparency that represents the close ties among our three countries. We will seek the active and open involvement of citizens, labor, the private sector and non-governmental organizations in setting the agenda and making progress.

With our neighbors to the south, that agenda must include securing our border. The hard work of comprehensive immigration reform must be done at home; we will be a nation of laws and immigrants. But we also have to work with Mexico to crack down on both illegal immigration and transnational criminal organizations that threaten people on both sides of the border.

This will take new investments and new partnerships. Here’s some of what we need to do:

•Increase technology and real-time intelligence-sharing to allow U.S. and Mexican authorities to track and dismantle drug-trafficking cartels.

•Invest in anti-drug education on both sides of the border to reduce demand for illicit narcotics.

•Make a concerted effort to disrupt arms smuggling and money laundering from the United States that supplies Mexican drug cartels with weapons and funds.

•Partner with Mexico to enhance the professionalism of its law enforcement and judiciary officials.

It’s also time to develop a bilateral strategy for lifting up our border communities. Six and a half million Americans live in cities and towns next to the border, and 61 million Americans live in the four states that border Mexico. Too often we neglect the unique needs of these communities, which are integrated with their sister cities across the border. As president, I will work with state and local governments to enhance cross-border partnerships in transportation, law enforcement, environmental protection, health care and water usage.

At a national level, our diplomacy with Mexico must aim to amend NAFTA. I will seek enforceable labor and environment standards - not unenforceable side agreements that have done little to curb NAFTA’s failures. To reduce illegal immigration, we also have to help Mexico develop its own economy, so that more Mexicans can live their dreams south of the border. That’s why I’ll increase foreign assistance, including expanded micro-financing for businesses in Mexico.

Finally, we have to recognize the connection between our rhetoric and our relations - both with Mexico and within our own borders. We can and should have a robust debate about immigration reform, but we should never demonize or scapegoat any ethnic group. Already, we have seen an unacceptable spike in hate crimes aimed at Latinos across America. This has proven divisive here at home, and it risks poisoning our relations with Latin America.

Our relationship with Mexico should serve as a bridge to greater security and prosperity in North America and to better relations with Latin America. But we cannot achieve this partnership unless we engage in sustained and focused diplomacy, and develop a more effective working relationship with our neighbor to the south.

Dallas Morning News | Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Lou Dobbs & Ron Paul take on the NAFTA highway

We Are Change Confronts NAU Minion Vicente Fox

In this interview with Mexico’s former president, Vicente Fox, conducted by Luke Rudkwowski of We Are Change, we get more hum and haw about the inevitability of the North American Union. Fox insists little to nothing is happening in regard to the original the Security and Prosperity Partnership game plan, initiated by Bush, Fox, and former Canadian Premier Paul Martin in 2005. Bush considers Americans concerned about the SPP and the NAU as little more than conspiracy nuts, never mind those transnational highways going in all over Texas. Read more

The North American Union, Mexico style

American and Canadian patriots scouring the Internet for the latest on the North American Union (NAU) may be missing a huge resource.Politicians and the mainstream media still brand as conspiracy theorists those who suspect a European Union style NAU is destined for Canada, the United States and Mexico.

A Canada Free Press (CFP) reader reminds us “Mexico has its own Security and Prosperity (SPP) websites. Mexico’s SPP websites are called (ASPAN) (Spanish).”

“Just because we’ve been defending (and attacking) on so many other fronts doesn’t mean we’ve forgotten the North American Union a.k.a. the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP),” the reader wrote CFP. “The NAU’s “unelected presidente Jorge Boosh is plowing full steam ahead. One sign of his intention-announced in January’s State of the Union message-is to renew pressure for Amnesty for the 20 million or more illegal aliens now in the United States. Another sign is his choice to head the GOP in the 2008 election: Sen. John “Songbird” McCain, co-sponsor with Teddy Kennedy of the 2007 illegal alien Amnesty Bill.

The links below show the reality of the NAU in Mexican planning, where it’s regarded as permanent policy to bind three countries into a union that dissolves US sovereignty.

The Mexican equivalent of SPP presents a version much clearer on intent. Here is what they say in one question: “Que es la APAN?

. Es un proceso trilateral, permanente, para una mayor integracion de America del Norte, que sera evaluado por los Mandatorios de manera semestral.

Translation:

“What is ASPAN?

“It is a tri-lateral process, permanent, for a major integration of North America, which will be evaluated by the representatives periodically.”

Please note there is a very clear agenda that makes use of the world “PERMANENT”.

This is not a NAFTA or CAFTA which can be reversed if the government so directs. In Mexico, this is a permanent union.

Canadian Free Press | Judi McLeod | Thursday, February 14, 2008

9/11: The “Perfect Opportunity” for North American Integration

On February 12, 2008, the Canadian newspaper, the Financial Post, published an opinion piece by Michael Hart, of Carleton University, entitled, “Canada Blew It,” in which he blamed the “slow” approach to North American integration on Canada’s policies following 9/11. The article begins by stating: Read more

A Big Easy North American Union

Already the symbol of abandonment, must New Orleans now become the symbol of abandonment of the entire country? Going well beyond the Port of New Orleans, Security and Prosperity Partnership plans for “North American Integration” endanger port, trucking, and railroad jobs, as well as investments, incomes, and State revenues all over the country. The SPP is coming to the Big Easy, why should you care? Let’s have a look… Read more

Resolution fights North American Union

Urges U.S. to withdraw from Security and Prosperity Partnership

A state lawmaker in Utah has introduced a resolution encouraging the U.S. to withdraw from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and any other bilateral activity that would move the country toward an EU-style continental merger.

Republican state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom introduced House Resolution 1 to the Utah legislature this week after a similar measure passed the House last year by a 47-24 vote but was blocked by a Senate committee just before the session’s close.

“I feel confident we will get this resolution passed this year,” Sandstrom told WND. “We learned a lot last year about our opponents, and this year we are better prepared to anticipate their legislative moves to block us.” Read more

North American Union

Read more

« Previous Page — Next Page »