Links to conferences, projects, NGOs

Dear Canadians,

As defined in Chapter 10.6.3, Chapter 9 Article 1, Chapter 10.2 Article 3, and Section 4 on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights of the Global Constitution, direct democracy is a community right. Direct democracy is the right of global citizens to hold referendums on any issue -- and to veto legislation.

This is a very important concept we must deal with now.

We are not just talking about a population such as the population of Quebec going through a referendum to separate from Canada, or for every province of Canada having a veto power in Ottawa, we are talking about Canada having a veto power in the Global Government of North America (GGNA).

We want the population of Canada to hold a referendum on having such veto power, and we dont to let Ottawa dictate to Canadians what is good for them. We want no more a Brian Mulroney type of Prime Minister to make deal South of us such as the FTA, or now the FTAA and NAFTA. Let Canadians have a say in major decisions. Direct democracy will allow us to be part of the solution, and to be a responsible and accountable People.

The threat of international terrorism originates for the most part outside North America and is due primarily on the American Government foreign policies. All Member Nations of the GGNA should have a veto power on such policies. All foreign policies should be dealt by the GGNA and not by a single individual Member Nation. Security should be handle by the GGNA. Any weakness in controlling access to Member Nations from abroad reduces the security of the GGNA as a whole and exacerbates the pressure to intensify controls on intracontinental movement and traffic, which increases the transaction costs associated with trade and travel within Member Nations.

Canada wants a veto power on all major proposals, policies, strategies submitted for approval. No Member Nation of the GGNA is allowed to go alone (unilaterally) on any such major proposals, policies, and strategies, or any action (s) that can have an impact on all other Member Nations.

Direct Democracy implies that:

*     Global Citizens are willing and able to participate fully in the decision making process on issues that most affect them.
*     Global Citizens should have full access to information on global affairs, and the conduct of global business should be open and transparent, with a well-developed global-wide communication system.
*     Global Parliament should always recognize that it is accountable to Global Citizens.
*     Direct democracy will encourage global citizen input into global policy, and enable Global Citizens to participate more actively in global affairs.
*     Direct democracy will raise the level of public awareness and encourage debate of key global issues.
*     Global Parliament can exercise the leadership necessary to become a model of effective “direct democracy” for all global communities.
*     A direct democracy global law gives Global Citizens and Global Parliament an effective and orderly way of addressing contentious issues.
*     A direct democracy global law strengthens the hand of Global Parliament by providing additional credibility in dealing with senior governments and non-elected bodies.
*     A direct democracy bylaw shows that Global Parliament has faith in its Global Citizens. Thus, Global Parliament in turn earns increased respect from Global Citizens.
*     Direct democracy does not mean government by referendum. Almost all Global Parliament decisions would continue to be made as they are now with the usual consultative processes. Few issues would be important and contentious enough to prompt referenda.

Direct democracy is important to sustain life on the planet but its position on the Scale gives it its overall importance. 'Direct democracy' is very much like a voting system based on 'proportional representation'. There are many different aspects of 'direct democracy'. For instance, in a single riding there may be as many as 8 seats and and several candidates running. Parties offer voters a slate of local candidates. Voters can rank candidates of the same party, but may also choose to give support to candidates of different parties. Voters rank as many or as few candidates as they wish. Voters can rank any number of candidates without fear their vote will be wasted by selecting unpopular candidates. A voter’s rankings will be considered in order until that voter’s ballot can be used. When your number one choice is eliminated for lack of support your number two becomes your first choice. When a voter’s ballot is used in support of a given candidate, but that candidate has a surplus of votes, a ballot’s unused portion will be transferred to the voter’s next choice until a ballot’s full value has been used. Most votes will count, little fear of wasting one’s vote, no fear of vote splitting. No need to support a candidate or party you don’t really want for fear of helping elect those you like even less. You can vote authentically. This is freedom for voters. This is how democracy is supposed to work. This voting system empowers voters more than parties because votes are for candidates not for parties. Also, candidate selection will take place at the local riding level, not at party head office. Most importantly, voters will rank candidates of the same party as well as candidates of different parties. It maximizes choice for voters. Competition is not just between candidates of different parties but also between candidates of the same party. This voting system is also a measure of independence from party control and that will make a very significant contribution to greater accountability in government. It will yield a legislature that mirrors the political, social, ethnic, and geographic diversity of a population. Electing candidates in multi-member ridings ensures a broader range of political interests and issues will be represented than is possible under any other system. Preferential voting induces a politics of cooperation, consensus, and civility.

Direct democracy comprises a form of democracy and theory of civics wherein all citizens can directly participate in the political decision-making process. Some proposed systems would give people both legislative and executive powers, but most extant systems allow input into the legislative process only. Direct democracy in its traditional form is rule by the people through referenda. The people are given the right to pass laws, veto laws and withdraw support from a representative (if the system has representatives) at any time.

Direct democracy in its modern sense is characterized by three pillars:

*     Initiative
*     Referendum including binding referenda
*     Recall

The second pillar can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be scrapped. This effectively grants the populace a veto on government legislation. The third pillar gives the people the right to recall elected officials by petition and referendum.

In Canada, the use of citizens' assemblies (also known as an estates-general in the province of Quebec), involving citizen bodies chosen at random, is growing and avoids the disadvantages of older, more plebiscitary forms of direct democracy. The province of British Columbia recently set up a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in which members were chosen at random for each riding. The citizens' assembly has just recommended the province use Single Transferable Voting (STV) to elect the provincial legislature. In a referendum conducted on May 17, 2005, 57% of the voters approved this new system of voting.

As we have always done in the past with the Global Dialogues, Global Dialogue 2006 was made to allow your participation in the making of proposals and principles toward the development of the GGNA. We are asking you to participate in Global Dialogue 2006. More specifically, we are asking you to discuss with us the following proposals and principles.

a.    Human and Earth Rights within the GGNA
b.    GGNA proposals
c.    Canada wants a veto power
d.    GGNA principles
e.    Politics and Justice without borders: Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.
f.    Good bye NAFTA, this is your Requiem

Human and Earth Rights within the GGNA

The Scale of Human and Earth Rights contains six (6) sections. Section 1 has more importance than all other sections below, and so on.

Concerning sections 1, 2, and 3, it shall be Global Governments highest priority to guarantee these rights to their respective Member Nations and to have proper legislation and implement and enforce global law as it applies and as shown in the Global Constitution.

Section 1. Ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems

Section 2. Primordial human rights

safety and security
have shelter
'clean' energy
a 'clean' and healthy environment
drink fresh water
breath clean air
eat a balance diet and
basic clothing.

Section 3.    The ecological rights, the protection of the global life-support systems and the primordial human rights of future generations

Concerning Sections 4, 5 and 6, it shall be the aim of Global Governments to secure these other rights for all global citizens within their respective Member Nations but without immediate guarantee of universal achievement and enforcement. These rights are defined as Directive Principles, obligating the Global Governments to pursue every reasonable means for universal realization and implementation.

Section 4.    Community rights, rights of direct democracy, the right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) and after voting representatives democratically

Section 5.    Economic rights (business and consumer rights, and their responsibilities and accountabilities) and social rights (civil and political rights)

Section 6.    Cultural rights and religious rights

GGNA proposals.

The Global Government of North America (GGNA) proposes:

a)     A common economic zone
A common economic zone through the elimination of remaining tariff and nontariff barriers to trade among Member Nations of the GGNA. Member Nations must also expand cooperation on trade-related areas, including border and transportation infrastructure; a concerted effort to reduce the many regulatory gaps and inconsistencies that hamper the flow of trade in Member Nations; and coordinated investment in North America’s human capital, both through education and training, and through improved labor mobility within the continent.

b)     An economic space that provides new opportunities for individuals in all Member Nations: adopting a common approach to regulation, increasing labor mobility, and enhancing support for education programs.

c)     Establishing a Seamless North American Market for Trade.
With tariff barriers virtually eliminated, the time has come to take a more comprehensive approach to strengthening the economic prospects for citizens in all Member Nations. The first step is to encourage convergence in the most-favored-nation tariff rates each partner charges on imports from outside the GGNA. Next, the governments should reduce the remaining nontariff barriers to the flow of goods and services, and address problems arising from charges of price discrimination and subsidization by competitors within the GGNA. Finally, they should coordinate their approach to unfair trade practices by foreign suppliers to the North American market. The ultimate goal should be to create a seamless market for suppliers and consumers throughout North America.

d)     Adopting a common external tariff.
We recommend that Member Nations harmonize external tariffs on a sector-by-sector basis, to the lowest prevailing rate consistent with multilateral obligations. The effort should begin with goods on which current tariff rates are closest and then proceed to close larger gaps, with the goal of adopting a common external tariff, thus eliminating the need for rules of origin and further facilitating integration and better use of scarce resources.

e)     Reviewing those sectors of NAFTA that were excluded or those aspects that have not been fully implemented. Each of the three countries decided to exclude unilaterally certain sectors and issues from NAFTA. Some of these remain sensitive issues; others may be ripe for review. In addition, several elements have not been implemented in the way that all had anticipated. Some changes—for example, the negotiation of a sanitary agreement to promote agricultural trade, or expanding the NAFTA services agreement to include cabotage—would be useful but also difficult. We recommend a high-level review to examine all of these issues and make recommendations on how to make the coverage of NAFTA more comprehensive.

f)     Establishing a permanent tribunal for GGNA dispute resolution.
The Earth Court of Justice will develop and administer the program. The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent, and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.

g)     Establishing a joint approach to unfair trade practices.
The use of countervailing and anti-dumping duties by one Member Nation against another has generated considerable ill will, though there has been a steady decline in the use of these trade remedies; there have been few new cases in the industrial sectors, with the most difficult cases now limited to resource and agricultural trade. The time has come to adopt a unified approach to deal with the internal and the external challenge of unfair trade practices, beginning with phased suspensions in sectors of laws governing unfair trade practices.

h)     Establishing a common competition commission.
Once Member Nations have concluded the resource accord described above and phased in the suspension of antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings for all sectors, they should also establish a common commission — a continental anti-trust agency — to address harmful subsidy practices, to promote healthy competition, and to protect against predatory pricing. At the same time, they should develop shared standards for identifying and responding collectively to unfair trade practices by parties outside the GGNA.

i)     Adopting a common approach to regulation.
Significant regulatory differences continue to divide the North American economic space, and as other barriers to trade, such as tariffs, regulatory efficiency is becoming increasingly important as a source of competitive advantage. Canada, the United States, and Mexico each have developed rules to protect their environment and the well-being of their citizens. All three share the same broad objectives, but their actual rules have evolved largely in isolation. In many cases, the result is what has been labeled “the tyranny of small differences,” one that imposes large economic costs even when regulatory goals, processes, standards, and outcomes are quite similar.

The most obvious costs of unnecessary regulatory differences are borne by businesses and consumers. Rules that fragment the North American market reduce economies of scale and discourage specialization, competition, and innovation. Harmonization of regulation, in effect, creates a bigger market, one that would lead to more competitive exports and lower consumer prices across North America. In addition to raising compliance costs for businesses and their customers, fragmented regulation increases the administrative costs to governments and taxpayers. Regulators in Canada and Mexico each must try to achieve the same results as their counterparts in the United States and yet must do so with only a fraction of the resources. Furthermore, because much of the resulting administrative work is carried out at border points, regulatory differences are particularly damaging in their impact on border delays and congestion, as the volume of trade within North America exceeds the capacity of its border infrastructure.

Regulatory differences can have a negative impact on the very environmental and health outcomes the regulations themselves are supposed to encourage. Unnecessary delays in the approval for sale and distribution of innovative products can prevent timely access to new pharmaceuticals or medical technology that might save lives, or to new fertilizers or chemicals that could help industrial plants and farmers do a better job of protecting the environment.

A collaborative approach to regulatory reform could help all Member Nations expand economic opportunity within North America while strengthening the protection of the environment, health and safety, and other shared objectives of regulatory policy. While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.

j)     Making transportation more efficient.
The efficiency of the transportation network is critical to making North America a more competitive place to invest and to produce, and in spreading the benefits of economic growth to all corners of the continent. Among other regulatory reforms, governments should consider the benefits of allowing North American transportation firms unlimited access to each others’ territory, including provision for full cabotage (trade between two points within a country, for example, a Canadian trucker hauling freight from Chicago to Los Angeles or an American airline carrying passengers between Mexico City and Vancouver) for airlines and surface carriers.

k)     Adopting the “tested once” approach for biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
The cost and quality of health care is a critical issue in all three countries. Biotechnology and pharmaceuticals play a vital role in providing new treatments that improve health outcomes and often reduce costs as well, but they face huge costs in developing and then winning regulatory approval for new products. Preliminary research suggests that regulatory cooperation in the areas of human and veterinary drugs, medical devices, pest control, and chemicals would raise the value of sales in these sectors by more than 10 percent, profits by 8 percent, and the rate of return on new products by an average of 4.8 percent. Two possible approaches to reducing the regulatory burden while maintaining rigorous standards to protect health and safety would be to adopt a “tested once” principle by which a product tested in one country would meet the standards set by another, or to establish a North America testing center with personnel from each country.

l)     Integrating protection of food, health, and the environment.
The North American market for agricultural and food products is highly integrated, and the intense disruption of this market by just two cases of mad cow disease demonstrates the need to ensure that regulatory processes are as integrated as their relevant markets. Greater cooperation amongst GGNA Member Nations is essential in providing effective responses to threats to human and animal health and to the environment.

m)     Increasing Labor Mobility amongst Member Nations of the GGNA.
People are GGNA’s greatest asset. Goods and services cross borders easily; ensuring the legal transit of workers has been more difficult. Experience with the NAFTA visa system suggests that its procedures need to be simplified, and such visas should be made available to a wider range of occupations and to additional categories of individuals such as students, professors, bona fide frequent visitors, and retirees.

To make the most of the impressive pool of skill and talent within the GGNA, Member Nations should look beyond the NAFTA visa system. The large volume of undocumented migrants from Mexico within the United States is an urgent matter for those two countries to address. A long-term goal should be to create a “North American preference”—new rules that would make it much easier for employees to move and for employers to recruit across national boundaries within the continent. This would enhance North American competitiveness, increase productivity, contribute to Mexico’s development, and address one of the main outstanding issues on the Mexican-U.S. bilateral agenda.

Canada and the United States should consider eliminating restrictions on labor mobility altogether and work toward solutions that in the long run could enable the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico as well.

n)     Expanding temporary migrant worker programs.
Canada and the United States should expand programs for temporary labor migration from Mexico. For instance, Canada’s successful model for managing seasonal migration in the agricultural sector should be expanded to other sectors where Canadian producers face a shortage of workers and Mexico may have a surplus of workers with appropriate skills. Canadian and U.S. retirees living in Mexico should be granted working permits in certain fields, for instance as English teachers.

o)     Implementing the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico. This agreement would recognize payroll contributions to each other’s systems, thus preventing double taxation.

p)     Creating a “GGNA preference.”
Member Nations should agree on streamlined immigration and labor mobility rules that enable citizens of all Member Nations to work with far fewer restrictions than immigrants from other countries. This new system should be both broader and simpler than the current system of NAFTA visas. Special immigration status should be given to teachers, faculty, and students in the region.

Moving to full labor mobility between Canada and the United States. To make companies based in North America as competitive as possible in the global economy, Canada and the United States should consider eliminating all remaining barriers to the ability of their citizens to live and work in the other country. This free flow of people would offer an important advantage to employers in both countries by giving them rapid access to a larger pool of skilled labor, and would enhance the well-being of individuals in both countries by enabling them to move quickly to where their skills are needed. In the long term, the two countries should work to extend this policy to Mexico as well, though doing so will not be practical until wage differentials between Mexico and its two North American neighbors have diminished considerably.

Reinforcing an approach of mutual recognition of professional standards and degrees. Professional associations in each of Member Nations make decisions on the standards to accept professionals from other countries. But despite the fact that NAFTA already encourages the mutual recognition of professional degrees, little has actually been done. Member Nations should devote more resources to leading and create incentives that would encourage, the professional associations of each of the three countries in developing shared standards that would facilitate short-term professional labor mobility within the GGNA.

q)     Supporting a GGNA Education Program.
Given their historical, cultural, geographic, political, and economic ties, Member Nations should have the largest and most vibrant educational exchange network in the world. Currently, we do not. Despite the fact that Mexico is the second-largest trading partner of the United States, it ranks only seventh in sending students there. In 2004, only 13,000 Mexican undergraduate and graduate students attended U.S. universities. Similarly, Canada is the largest trading partner of the United States but ranked only fifth in educational exchanges, with 27,000 students in the United States compared to 80,000 students from India, followed by China, South Korea, and Japan. The number of Mexicans studying in Canada remains very low—about 1,000. And although American students study all over the world, relatively few go to Mexico and Canada. These numbers should be expanded dramatically to deepen familiarity and increase knowledge in each Member Nation.

r)     Creating a major scholarship fund for undergraduate and graduate students to study in Member Nations and to learn the region’s languages.
For many students, study abroad is possible only with financial assistance, but many scholarships, including the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), which has supported scholarships to and from all North American countries, have been reduced or halted. Cross-border educational study within the GGNA by its citizens should expand to reflect the degree of our commercial exchanges. To illustrate the scale of this proposal, it would lead to some 60,000 Mexican students studying in the United States and Canada, and comparable numbers of Canadian and American students studying in another Member Nation. We urge that state, provincial, and federal governments begin funding such scholarships now. The scholarships should include “language immersion” courses in each Member Nation and should encourage students to study in all Member Nations.

Developing a network of centers for GGNA studies. The European Union provides substantial funding for EU centers in fifteen universities in the United States, as well as twelve Jean Monnet Chairs. The U.S. Department of Education provides similar grants to support language and international studies outside North America, but not within North America. That should change. We recommend that the governments open a competition and provide grants to universities in each Member Nation to promote courses, education, and research on the GGNA and assist elementary and secondary schools in teaching about the GGNA. They could also administer scholarship programs. To support this effort, a student summit should be held periodically in each of the three countries.

Promoting Internet-based learning within the GGNA. A natural way to channel communication between Canada, the United States, and Mexico would be through Internet-based learning tools. Current examples include the Historica Foundation’s YouthLinks program in Canada, which enables high-school students to connect with their counterparts in other regions of Canada and around the world, and the School Connectivity Program (SCP) launched by the U.S. Department of State, which installs computers with Internet access in schools across nations that lack access to computer technology. The SCP program should be extended to all Member Nations.

Developing teacher exchange and training programs for elementary and secondary school teachers. This would assist in removing language barriers and give some students a greater sense of the GGNA identity. Greater efforts should also be made to recruit Mexican language teachers to teach Spanish in the United States and Canada.

Developing “sister school” and student exchange programs. Studying or living in another country or hosting a foreign-exchange student fosters cultural understanding. We recommend that states and municipalities encourage the development of “sister school” programs at both the secondary and university level to include the annual exchange of students between participating schools.

Encouraging imaginative ways to build GGNA connections between Member Nations. Foundations and research institutes can shape the way public and private institutions engage in a new concept such as the GGNA community. We encourage foundations and research institutes to provide support and research for addressing continental issues and developing curricula that would permit citizens of our three countries to look at each other in different ways than in the past.

Canada wants a veto power
The threat of international terrorism originates for the most part outside North America and is due primarily on the American Government foreign policies. All Member Nations of the GGNA should have a veto power on such policies. All foreign policies should be dealt by the GGNA and not by a single individual Member Nation. Security should be handle by the GGNA. Any weakness in controlling access to Member Nations from abroad reduces the security of the GGNA as a whole and exacerbates the pressure to intensify controls on intracontinental movement and traffic, which increases the transaction costs associated with trade and travel within Member Nations.

Canada wants a veto power on all major proposals, policies, strategies submitted for approval. No Member Nation of the GGNA is allowed to go alone (unilaterally) on any such major proposals, policies, and strategies, or any action (s) that can have an impact on all other Member Nations.

Canada wants "direct democracy". As defined in Chapter 10.6.3 of the Global Constitution, and Section 4 on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, direct democracy is a community right. Direct democracy is the right of global citizens to hold referendums on any issue -- and to veto legislation.

GGNA principles.

Member Nations of the Global Government of North America (GGNA) should be guided by the following principles:

•     Member Nations should approach continental issues together with a GGNA perspective rather than the traditional “dual-bilateral” approach that has long characterized their relationships.

•     North America is different from other regions of the world and must find its own cooperative route forward. A new GGNA community should rely not only on the market, but also on building a true GGNA Community. We must maintain respect for each other’s national sovereignty by forming the GGNA protecting such sovereignty and developing the Global Constitution.

•     Our economic focus should be on the creation of a common economic space that expands economic opportunities for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely.

•     The strategy needs to be integrated in its approach, recognizing the extent to which progress on each individual component enhances achievement of the others. Progress on security, for example, will allow a more open border for the movement of goods and people; progress on regulatory matters will reduce the need for active customs administration and release resources to boost security. GGNA solutions could ultimately serve as the basis for initiatives involving other like-minded countries, either in our hemisphere or more broadly.

•     A GGNA strategy must provide real gains for all Member Nations, and must not be approached as a zero-sum exercise. Poverty and deprivation are breeding grounds for political instability and undermine both national and regional security. The progress of the poorest among us will be one measure of success.

The threat of international terrorism originates for the most part outside North America and is due primarily on the American Government foreign policies. All Member Nations of the GGNA should have a veto power on such policies. All foreign policies should be dealt by the GGNA and not by a single individual Member Nation. Security should be handle by the GGNA. Any weakness in controlling access to Member Nations from abroad reduces the security of the GGNA as a whole and exacerbates the pressure to intensify controls on intracontinental movement and traffic, which increases the transaction costs associated with trade and travel within Member Nations.

•     All Member Nations of the GGNA should have a veto power on all major proposals, policies, strategies submitted for approval.
No Member Nation of the GGNA is allowed to go alone on any such major proposals, policies, and strategies, or any action (s) that can have an impact on all other Member Nation.

September 11 highlighted the need for new approaches to border management. In December 2001, Canada and the United States signed the Smart Border Declaration and an associated 30-point Action Plan to secure border infrastructure, facilitate the secure movement of people and goods, and share information. A similar accord, the United States-Mexico Border Partnership Agreement, and its 22-point Action Plan, were signed in March 2002. Both agreements included measures to facilitate faster border crossings for pre-approved travelers, develop and promote systems to identify dangerous people and goods, relieve congestion at borders, and revitalize cross-border cooperation mechanisms and information sharing. We should expand such programs to all Member Nations.

The defence of GGNA must consist of a more intense level of cooperation among security personnel of Member Nations, both within the GGNA and beyond the physical boundaries of the continent. The Container Security Initiative, for example, launched by the United States in the wake of 9/11, involves the use of intelligence, analysis, and inspection of containers not at the border but at a growing number of overseas ports from which goods are shipped. The ultimate goal is to provide screening of all containers destined for any port in North America, so that once unloaded from ships, containers may cross land borders within the region without the need for further inspections.

•     Establishing a common security perimeter by 2024.
Member Nations should articulate as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for the GGNA. In particular, Member Nations should strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he elects to enter first. We believe that these measures should be extended to include a commitment to common approaches toward international negotiations on the global movement of people, cargo, and vessels. Like free trade a decade ago, a common security perimeter for the GGNA is an ambitious but achievable goal that will require specific policy, statutory, and procedural changes in all three nations.

•     Developing a GGNA Border Pass.
Member Nations should develop a secure GGNA Border Pass with biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian “NEXUS” and the U.S.-Mexican “SENTRI” programs, which provide “smart cards” to allow swifter passage to those who pose no risk. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass. The pass would be accepted at all border points within the GGNA as a complement to, but not a replacement for, national identity documents or passports.

•     Developing a unified GGNA border action plan.
The closing of the borders following the 9/11 attacks awakened all three governments to the need for rethinking management of the borders. Intense negotiations produced the bilateral “Smart Borders” agreements. Although the two borders are different and may in certain instances require policies that need to be implemented at two speeds, cooperation by Member Nations in the following areas would lead to a better result than a “dual-bilateral” approach:

(1)     Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence of the list of “visa waiver” countries;
(2)     Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people, goods, and vessels (including integration of name-based and biometric watch lists);
(3)     Harmonize exit and export tracking procedures;
(4)     Fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals; and
(5)     Jointly inspect container traffic entering Member Nations ports, building on the Container Security Initiative.

•     Expanding the GGNA border infrastructure.
While trade has nearly tripled across both borders since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and NAFTA were implemented, border customs facilities and crossing infrastructure have not kept pace with this increased demand. Even if 9/11 had not occurred, trade would be choked at the border. There have been significant new investments to speed processing along both the Canadian-U.S. and Mexican-U.S. borders, but not enough to keep up with burgeoning demand and additional security requirements. The three governments should examine the options for additional border facilities and expedite their construction. In addition to allowing for continued growth in the volume of transborder traffic, such investments must incorporate the latest technology, and include facilities and procedures that move as much processing as possible away from the border.

Security cooperation among Member Nations should also extend to cooperation on counterterrorism and law enforcement, which would include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center, the development of ballistics and explosives registration, and joint training for law enforcement officials.

•     Increasing information and intelligence-sharing at the local, national, and global levels in both law enforcement.
Law enforcement cooperation should be expanded from its current levels through the exchange of liaison teams and better use of automated systems for tracking, storing, and disseminating timely intelligence. This should be done immediately. However, the ultimate goal needs to be the timely sharing of accurate information and intelligence and higher levels of cooperation.

Member Nations should consider a more extensive information-sharing and collaborative planning involving law enforcement as a means to build mutual trust and pave the way for closer cooperation in the future. Training and exercises should be developed to increase the cooperation and interoperability among and between the law enforcement agencies. These steps will provide better capabilities for detection of threats, preventative action, crisis response, and consequence management. At least one major exercise conducted by law enforcement authorities should be established as a goal over the next year. Of course, the extent of cooperation will be affected by the progress of reform of the police forces, customs, and judicial branch in Member Nations. In addition to the sharing of information, a Joint Analysis Center should be established immediately to serve as a clearing house for information and development of products for supporting law enforcement.

•     Intensifying Mexican efforts to accelerate its economic development.
NAFTA has transformed Mexico, but it has also deepened and made much more visible the divisions that exist in the country. Indeed, the northern part of Mexico, where the population has a higher level of education and is better connected to American and Canadian markets, has grown significantly faster than the center and the south.

NAFTA was designed to create new opportunities for trade and investment in Mexico and thus complement Mexican development programs. Officials hoped that Mexico would grow much faster than its more industrialized partners and begin to narrow the income gap among the three countries. However, investment has been modest, preventing Mexico from achieving higher levels of growth. Indeed, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimated that, with significant levels of investment, Mexico’s potential growth rate could reach 6 percent. But that requires big changes in current policies. For example, the World Bank estimated in 2000 that $20 billion per year for a decade is needed for essential infrastructure and educational projects in Mexico.

The gap in wages has led many Mexicans to travel north in search of higher incomes and better opportunities. For the past three decades, Mexico has been the largest source of legal immigrants to the United States, and Mexican-Americans make increasingly valued and growing contributions to the life of the United States and, through remittances, to their families at home. Mexico is also the leading source of unauthorized migration, with attendant economic and security problems in both countries and untold hardships for Mexican migrants. Over time, the best way to diminish these problems is by promoting better economic opportunities in Mexico. Mexico also requires significant reforms in its tax and energy policies so that it can use its own resources more effectively to advance its economic development.

To achieve this objective, Mexico must reorient its economic policies to encourage more investment and to distribute the benefits of economic growth more equitably and efficiently across the country. Progress needs to be made, in particular, in the following areas:

(1)     dramatically expanding investment and productivity in the energy sector;
(2)     continuing efforts to enhance governmental transparency, build regulatory capacity, and deepen judicial reform;
(3)     improving public access to high-quality education;
(4)     promoting the development of basic infrastructure projects by state and municipal governments;
(5)     helping small and medium-sized producers take advantage of economic integration;
(6)     increasing the federal tax base as a percentage of gross domestic product; and
(7)     establishing clear and measurable objectives for public spending. Of course, it will be up to Mexicans to develop the policy conditions for these changes to take place.

All Member Nations need to acknowledge that a major regional effort is also necessary. To that end, Canada and the United States should build on their bilateral initiatives supporting Mexico’s development, notably the U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Prosperity and the Canada-Mexico Partnership. In both programs, the private sector in all three countries is a partner in the development effort. Mexico should also be recognized as a priority within the international development programs of both the United States and Canada, and both should explore with the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank ways to use multilateral development funds most effectively to address the North American development challenge. Canada recently announced a major reform of its development assistance programs, doubling overall resources while focusing its efforts on a core group of countries. Mexico is not included in that new list and it should be.

• Establishing a Global Government of North America Investment Fund (GGNAIF) for infrastructure and human capital.
With a more conducive investment climate in Mexico, private funds will be more accessible for infrastructure and development projects. The United States and Canada should establish a GGNAIF to encourage private capital flow into Mexico. The fund would focus on increasing and improving physical infrastructure linking the less developed parts of Mexico to markets in the north, improving primary and secondary education, and technical training in states and municipalities committed to transparency and institutional development. A relatively small amount of funds should be targeted for technical assistance for project design and evaluation, management, and training. If the GGNAIF is to be effective, it will need significant help from the United States and Canada, and counterpart funding through higher tax revenues from Mexico. The fund design should consider such issues as incentives and debt absorption and management capacity of subnational governments to ensure that resources are effectively used. The fund will need to be managed in a transparent manner according to best international practices, and should be capitalized through a diverse set of innovative financial mechanisms. Availability of credit enhancement mechanisms for long-term loans in pesos will be critical.

• Enhancing the capacity of theGlobal Government of North America Development Bank (GGNADBank) with the mandate of:

(1)     supporting infrastructure sectors, particularly transportation;
(2)     permit it to access domestic capital markets and apply credit enhancement tools;
(3)     support the establishment of revolving funds through both grants and soft loans throughout its jurisdiction; and
(4)     strengthen its technical assistance programs to promote good governance and creditworthiness of communities and public utilities.

GGNADBank’s internal procedures and the process of project certification should be reformed in order to allow for a significantly faster and more transparent deployment of funds.

•     All Member Nations of the GGNA produce substantial amounts of energy, but the region as a whole is a net importer of energy.
Washington’s two neighbors are its biggest suppliers of energy. The production of oil and natural gas on the continent is not keeping up with the growth in demand.

Although North American production of oil and gas has been declining, both Canada and Mexico have the potential to develop growing supplies both for their own direct use and for export. These two countries, however, have distinct approaches to the development of energy and other natural resources that must be taken into account in the process of mapping the best path forward for North America.

•     Canada is committed to efficient energy markets, open investment, and free trade in this sector.
Canada’s vast oilsands, once a high-cost experimental means of extracting oil, now provide a viable new source of energy that is attracting a steady stream of multibillion dollar investments, and interest from countries such as China, and they have catapulted Canada into second place in the world in terms of proved oil reserves. Production from oilsands fields is projected to reach 2 million barrels per day by 2010. The most serious constraints on additional growth are the limited supply of skilled people and the shortage of infrastructure, including housing, transportation links, and pipeline capacity. Another constraint is regulatory approval processes that can slow down both resource and infrastructure development significantly.

•     Mexico is also a major energy supplier and customer within North America.
In 2004, it was the second-largest exporter of oil to the United States; in previous years, it was consistently among the top four suppliers. Mexico relies for a significant share of its revenues on the state oil producer (Pemex). It has major oil and gas reserves, but these are relatively untapped. Development has been hampered by constitutional restrictions on ownership, which are driven by an understandable desire to see this strategic asset used for the benefit of Mexicans. This restriction on investment, coupled with the inefficient management of the state monopoly, Pemex, has contributed to low productivity. As a result, Mexico has expensive and unreliable supplies of energy for its consumers and industries. Mexico has begun to bring in some foreign capital through multiple service contracts, but the most serious constraints on its future growth as an energy supplier are the restrictions that impede development of its own energy resources and the low productivity of Pemex. Reforms in this area are needed urgently.

•     Although energy security represents perhaps the most critical challenge, it is important to recognize that trade in other natural resources, including metals, minerals, wood, and other products, is also central to the growth and economic security of the Member Nations.
In these other resource sectors, NAFTA has not succeeded in ensuring a free flow of goods. Resource and agricultural products such as softwood lumber, fish, beef, wheat, and sugar have been the flashpoints for highly visible trade disputes. The softwood lumber case has led some Canadians to question whether the United States will comply with NAFTA if decisions by the dispute-settlement mechanism run counter to private American interests. The United States and Mexico have failed to comply with free trade provisions on movement of trucks for more than a decade, and the failure to resolve the softwood lumber case between Canada and the United States has plagued their trade relations for the past quarter century. Changing some trade rules and the dispute settlement process may reduce this friction, as would a determined effort to reduce unnecessary regulatory differences within North America.

•     The GGNA is blessed with an abundant resource base.
Exploiting these resources on a long-term, sustainable basis requires that Member Nations work together to resolve issues and ensure responsible use of scarce resources and the free flow of both resources and capital across all borders. As noted, the most troubled areas of cross-border trade over the past twenty years have been in resource trade, largely because of the impact of regulatory differences, including different approaches to resource pricing and income protection. Efforts to eliminate these problems on the basis of dispute settlement mechanisms have not worked as well as anticipated.

•     Developing a GGNA energy strategy.
Recognizing their individual policies and priorities, Member Nationss need to work together to ensure energy security for people in each Member Nation. Issues to be addressed include the expansion and protection of the North American energy infrastructure; development opportunities and regulatory barriers; and the technological and human capital constraints on accelerated development of energy resources within the GGNA. These objectives form part of the agenda of the North American Energy Working Group established in 2001. This initiative, however, has so far made only modest progress toward developing a GGNA strategy, and it does not cover oil.

•     Fully developing Mexican energy resources.
Although the inclination of Mexico to retain full ownership of its strategic resources is understandable, expanded and more efficient development of these resources is needed to accelerate Mexico’s economic growth. Mexico is quickly losing ground in its energy independence, and the only way to satisfy growing demands within Mexico is to find ways to unlock its energy sector. Progress can be made even under the existing constitutional constraints. As discussed above, Canada and the United States could make important contributions in this effort through the development of creative mechanisms, especially financial, that bring needed technology and capital to Mexico. The most important steps, however, must be taken in Mexico by Mexicans.

•     Concluding a GGNA resource accord.
In order to ensure the fullest development of North America’s mineral, forest, and agricultural resources, investors in one country need to be confident that they will not be harassed by competitors in another. To that end, Member Nations need to conclude an accord that recognizes the balance between security of supply and security of access and includes rules about resource pricing that will reduce the friction that has given rise to some of the most persistent and difficult bilateral irritants. A resource accord should also address the remaining barriers to trade in agricultural products, including barriers that arise from the different regimes in the three countries, to guarantee prices and incomes.

•     Making a GGNA commitment to a cleaner environment.
Expanding energy production as a driver of a more competitive and growing North American economy brings with it a joint responsibility for shaping a cleaner environment and reducing pollution. For example, Canada has signed the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change, which requires significant reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases, but that agreement does not cover Mexico, and Washington has opted out. A GGNA energy and emissions regime could offer a regional alternative to Kyoto that includes all three countries. Such a regime should include a tradable voucher system for emissions trading within the region analogous to the Clean Development Mechanism.

•     Expanding a GGNA collaboration on conservation and innovation.
The development of new technologies and conservation strategies is essential both to reduce pollution and to make the most of North America’s resource strengths. Currently, the North American Energy Working Group addresses only a limited number of energy-related opportunities for collaboration. Future initiatives should focus on development of desalination technologies, alternative energy sources, cleaner burning fuels, and more fuel-efficient passenger vehicles.

•     Effective progress will require new institutional structures and arrangements to drive the agenda and manage the deeper relationships that result.
Canada, the United States, and Mexico already share a rich network of institutional links. A recent Canadian government study identified 343 formal treaties and thousands of informal arrangements or “light institutions” with the United States alone. Mexico has more than 200 formal treaties and agreements with the United States. There are many fewer arrangements between Canada and Mexico, but the network of contacts is still substantial and growing.

What is needed now is a limited number of new institutions to provide existing arrangements with greater energy and direction. To this end, the GGNA recommends the following institutional changes, which complement each other:

(1)     An annual Global Government of North America Summit meeting. There is no more succinct or forceful way to demonstrate to the people of all Member Nations the importance of the GGNA than to have the leaders meet at least once a year.

(2)     Strengthening government structures. To ensure that the summit meetings achieve their full potential, each government must take steps to reinforce the ability of its internal structures to deal effectively and imaginatively with North American issues. Steps should include strengthening links between governments by establishing minister-led working groups that will be required to report back within ninety days, and to meet regularly.

(3)     A Global Government of North America Advisory Council. To ensure a regular injection of creative energy into the various efforts related to the GGNA, Member Nations should appoint an independent body of advisers. This body should be composed of eminent persons from outside government, appointed to staggered multiyear terms to ensure their independence. Their mandate would be to engage in creative exploration of new ideas from a GGNA perspective and to provide a public voice for Member Nations. A complementary approach would be to establish private bodies that would meet regularly or annually to buttress Member Nations relationships.

•     The Global Government of North America must work for the average citizen.
When adequate public policies are in place to foster economic and social cohesion, increased trade and investment flows will only improve the living standard of the majority of the population. Economic and social cohesion in Member Nations is in the interest of the GGNA, because it will result in an expansion of the domestic market and it will reduce the flows of undocumented northward migration, thus enhancing security in Member Nations.

•     Reforms to reduce poverty and inequality in Mexico must start from within.
Mexico must focus on achieving universal primary education; promoting gender equality and empowering women; building integrated infrastructure networks, water, and sanitation facilities; applying science, technology, and innovation for development; and promoting environmental sustainability. As many Mexicans have claimed, building up the tax revenue base, along with beefing up the country’s antitrust agency and its regulatory capacity, are essential to increase competitiveness. The government needs to build the infrastructure—human, physical, and institutional—for ordinary people to take advantage of the GGNA.

•     Economic and social citizenship in the GGNA implies the ability of citizens to exert pressure for the implementation of an inclusive economic policy at home and to be engaged in the international economy. To the extent that citizens of Member Nations see that the GGNA brings concrete benefits, a new constituency will be galvanized to support these efforts in the years to come.

Some other GGNA proposals include:

*     Coordinating programs to ensure governments are prepared for large-scale emergencies or terrorist attacks;
*     Joint protection of critical cross-border infrastructure, such as the Ambassador Bridge that spans the Detroit River and facilitates one-fourth of the daily $1.4 billion in trade between Canada and the United States;
*     Strengthening approaches to maritime and aviation security;
*     Establishing a second site for a Canada-U.S. pilot project that would check cargo and passengers before they cross the border; and
*     And creating a single, integrated program to allow “trusted travelers” who frequent the borders to travel quickly by air, land and sea.

NAFTA has dramatically enhanced our ability to make better use of the abundant resources of our three countries, and thus made an important contribution to economic growth within the GGNA. Over the last decade, however, our economies have faced growing challenges in increasingly competitive and globalized world markets. We need to do more to ensure that our policies provide our firms and workers with a fair and unfettered basis to meet the challenges of global competition. Unwieldy North American rules of origin, increasing congestion at our ports of entry, and regulatory differences among our three countries raise costs instead of reducing them. Trade in certain sectors—such as natural resources, agriculture, and energy—remains far from free, and disputes in these areas have been a source of disagreement among our countries. Furthermore, the NAFTA partners have been unable to resolve a number of important trade and investment disputes, which has created continuing tension in our commercial relationships. Changes in formal trade agreements will not de done. However, in other areas, notably regulatory cooperation and the expansion of transborder activities in critical sectors such as transportation and financial services, there is a shared recognition that Member Nations can and should act quickly in ways that would make a real difference in improving the competitiveness of firms and individuals in the GGNA. Shared challenge of uneven economic development. A fast lane to development is crucial for Mexico to contribute to the security of the entire region. Mexico’s development has failed to prevent deep disparities between different regions of the country, and particularly between remote regions and those better connected to international markets. Northern states have grown ten times faster than those in the center and south of the country. Lack of economic opportunity encourages unauthorized migration, and has been found to be associated with corruption, drug trafficking, violence, and human suffering. Improvements in human capital and physical infrastructure in Mexico, particularly in the center and south of the country, would knit these regions more firmly into the GGNA economy and are in the economic and security interest of all Member Nations.

Politics and Justice without borders: Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.

CANADA TODAY is under threat. The country's capacity and even existence as an independent nation, able to shape its own political, social and economic future, are at risk. Relations between Canada and the United States (US) are decidedly chilly these days: the Iraq war, trade disputes, name-calling, and bickering at the border.

It doesn't mean that the relationship will grind to a halt. With more than half a million people and a billion dollars worth of trade crossing the border daily that is not going to happen.

Every day thousands of cars, trucks, trains and planes roll across the Canada-U.S. border as more than $1 billion in trade circulates between the countries. Year in and year out, Canada and the United States are each other’s biggest trading partners. The longtime relationship is worth hundreds of billions annually. Canada’s exports to the U.S. accounted for $348.4 billion – about 84 per cent – of the $410.7 billion in goods shipped out of the country last year. Conversely, about 71 per cent of Canada’s $356 billion in imports last year arrived from the U.S. Together the United States, Canada and Mexico have a trading relationship worth more than $700 billion a year; an increase of 88 percent between 1993 and 2003.

Economic retaliation is unlikely because the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has changed the trading relationship between the two countries. Many plants in Canada now have North American product mandates and are producing for the entire Canada-U.S. market, while those in the U.S. operate in the same fashion. That means a huge amount of cross-border trade is now intra-company trade. That creates a strong incentive for business to lobby both governments to avoid economic disruptions or retaliation no matter what the nature of the relationship at the top. The U.S. has a vital interest in keeping the border open. Its economy would be hurt, whether in the integrated auto and other manufacturing sectors, or in petroleum and other vital resource sectors. Thus, both countries would be highly motivated to minimize disruptions and normalize cross-border traffic quickly should another terrorist attack occur.

The most important priority for Canadian diplomacy over the next few years is to reach a new accommodation with the United States because it is only when that relationship is comprehensible, predictable and sound that the country can again assume a meaningful world role.

There is a wide gap in attitudes between the business élite and the Canadian public. Business leaders are closer to U.S. policymakers in their attitudes on a range of issues, from the war in Iraq to missile defense to Kyoto. Unlike the general public, they favour minimalist government and low taxes. They believe we must fall into line with U.S. policies at all costs or risk our economic security. Many would like Canada to become more like the U.S. Although small in number, this group has great capacity, as the record shows, to shape the public debate and influence policmakers. Allowing corporate North America to define our interests as a nation implies, in the end, complete regulatory harmonization with the U.S. and the subordination of our economic, social, cultural, environmental and defence policies to U.S. policies. Business elites and many of our own politicians argue that Canada can and should enter into a relationship with the U.S. which is similar to the relationship between the countries of the European Union (EU). However, it is a mistake to think that harmonization or integration with the U.S. will cause the U.S. to adopt Canadian or Canada-friendly policies. While the EU countries enjoy a relatively balanced relationship, Canada and the U.S. are far from equal partners. The economic and military superpower status of the U.S. makes such balance impossible. Thus, although it is rarely acknowledged by our economic and political elites, the practical implications of closer ties to the U.S. are that Canada will be forced to adopt U.S. policies through immense economic pressure. Everything from health care to immigration to security to control of resources would be affected. How would Canada maintain any sort of distinct identity or sovereignty in such conditions? The simple answer is that it wouldn't. Canada would become an American colony in all but name; it would not become the 51st state, because that would mean political integration on a par with the level of economic integration, which is not a factor in any proposals for deep integration (FTA, NAFTA, etc.).

This is an even more pressing issue at a moment in history when the U.S. is governed by an administration that is repealing civil rights and liberties, pulling money from social programs, disputing the scientific evidence for climate change and increasing pollution, and most disturbing of all, withdrawing from agreements and treaties which have allowed the world to develop an international rule of law. While Canada remains committed to multilateralism, the U.S. has refused to participate in a long list of important international conventions and treaties, including the Kyoto Protocol, the Rome Statute of the International Criminial Court, the land mines and nuclear test ban treaties, and many others. Nor has the U.S. respected the U.N. in launching its war against Iraq, a predatory invasion of the Iraqui people for their oil & gas resources.

Meanwhile, every public opinion poll continues to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of Canadians don't want to be just like the U.S. Canadians may respect the U.S. ideals of freedom and democracy, enjoy some U.S. movies, T.V., music and authors, and remain committed to the close neighbourly relationship between the people of the two countries, but that doesn't mean that Canadians want to adopt every aspect of U.S. policy or sacrifice our ability to make unique democratic decisions of our own. Most of us still believe that there are important differences between the U.S. and Canada, and that these differences should be preserved. Many Canadians disagree strongly with the policies of the current U.S. administration, and object to implementing similar policies here at home. Unfortunately, our voices are rarely being heard when compared with the abundant propaganda of the "continentalists", and those advocating "deep integration".

"Continentalists" and "deep integration" proponents rarely miss an opportunity to warn that another terrorist attack is inevitable and that an extended border disruption (or series of border disruptions) would be devastating for the Canadian economy unless we protect ourselves by entering into agreements with the US. What is needed, they say, is a comprehensive negotiation where trade-offs across sectors are possible.

"Deep integration" is an economic term. It refers to economic integration that goes well beyond removal of formal barriers to trade and includes various ways of reducing the international burden of differing national regulations, such as mutual recognition and harmonization. "Deep integration" means, in reality, subjugating many of Canada's policies to those of the United States — including trade, immigration, energy, water, our dollar, taxation, defence and the environment — but without any corresponding voice in the governance structure — that is, the U.S. government — where decisions affecting many aspects of Canadian life would be made.

For example, "deep integration" means:

a)     giving the US whatever access to our energy that they want, even if that means dropping our pledge to deal with climate change through the Kyoto agreement.
b)     water exports to the United States;
c)     take on major new defence expenditures (presumably by buying lots of U.S.-made military technology);
d)     give up policies on culture and agriculture, including the Canadian Wheat Board; and so on.

Canadians would not only become almost powerless in addressing their fundamental future economic concerns, but would also lose the capacity to control the social environment and the ability to adjust to change because social policy would also end up being driven by U.S. policies.

What kind of Canada do proponents envisage at the end of the proposed deep integration path? And what guarantees would we have that, no matter what economic or security integration agreements are in place, the Americans wouldn’t still close or disrupt the border? The FTA dispute mechanism was supposed to protect us from U.S. actions against softwood lumber, cattle, and other exports, but has disastrously failed to do so.

Here, then, is the real story behind “deep integration”. Canada’s business class simply cannot compete with its U.S. counterpart. They refuse to pay for the necessary research and development, refuse to train their workers, are constantly begging for more tax cuts, and are notoriously risk-averse. As well, Canadian companies are eager to simply sell out to U.S. corporations. Since 1989, more than 95 percent of foreign investment in Canada has gone to buying up Canadian companies. Head offices are pouring over the border. The sheer lack of entrepreneurial vision is evident in Bay Street’s determination to tie itself to what more and more economists are declaring a declining economic power. The growing consensus is that smart countries and companies are getting in on the game where the growth is: China, India, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa. But not Canadian companies.

One of the reasons: the US is now beginning to lose its technology-based competitive advantage. The countries of western Europe, Japan, Korea, and even China have set ambitious national goals and are building universities, inviting immigration, and have clear objectives regarding industrial development and new technologies.

The United States is the economy and country to which Canada’s business leaders want us to tie our star. But even worse, the Government of Canada and Canada's business class actually believes they can negotiate a good deal with the current U.S. administration and Congress. This is delusional, given the rapid devolution of the U.S. into an imperial theocracy. It’s time for Canadians to look elsewhere for leadership; our economy, not to mention our country, is far too important to leave to the failed imagination of Bay Street CEOs.

Under their interpretation of co-operation, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico would insulate themselves against competition from the rest of the world with a common external tariff, and with an outer security perimeter against external threats. But as fast as they would construct these walls on the outside, they would tear down almost every fence on the inside with an across-the-board harmonization of rules, regulations and laws on everything from who could seek asylum in North America to military operations to pollution and environmental controls. In fact, they would go so far as to give Canadians and Americans absolute freedom to decide where they would work and where they would live.

The Europeans have built an economic and social partnership to address shared problems by creating shared political and administrative institutions. But it would be naïve to believe that similar institutions could be effectively created and made to work genuinely in a Canada-U.S. or a Canada-U.S.-Mexico partnership. The United States, as an imperial superpower, acts on the basis of economic and military power, not shared decision-making, and, given the country's great size, would not consider serious sharing of decisions and power with a much smaller country. The United States is instinctively unilateral in its approach.

If Canada is to pursue "deep integration" with the United States, then logically we should seek political union as well so that Canadians in the different provinces would have some opportunity to influence decisions. But this logical implementation of "deep integration" would also mean the end of Canada as a distinct geopolitical entity and the conversion of our provinces into U.S. states.

Despite accelerated economic integration over the last 15 years, opinion polling reveals a deep and growing divide in attitudes and values between Canadians and Americans. It shows that the vast majority of Canadians do not want to be more like Americans. On the contrary. Nevertheless, a majority of Canadians have come to terms in principle with NAFTA, and a substantial minority favour even closer economic integration. However, most Canadians don’t understand the term economic integration, and support drops sharply the more NAFTA and deep integration initiatives are perceived to impair domestic policy freedom. For the vast majority of Canadians, continued support is contingent on maintaining policy independence and retaining Canada’s unique social character. The confusion around the issue of integration and independence is understandable. The linkages are often subtle and indirect, and it takes time for effects to become apparent. And the mainstream media gatekeepers and pundits have steered away from this issue.

"Continentalists" promote a "strategic bargain," in which Canada and the United States, over time, would move to a customs union with a common made-in-Washington trade policy toward the rest of the world and the free movement not only of goods and services but also of people and capital. (So much for maintaining Canadian ownership of banks, TV networks or transportation systems.) This would also affect foreign policy: If the United States decided to use trade measures to punish China, attack the Europeans or demonize the Cubans, we would have to follow suit.

Deep integration advocates see a customs union as the next stage in the deepening of the continental market. Key features associated with a customs union are the creation of a common external tariff applied to all nations not part of the free trade area, and the establishment of a common trade policy. However, many advocates of a customs union also insert elements of a common market into their definition. A common or single market is seen in the literature as a still deeper stage of economic integration. It would include removing barriers to trade and investment in agricultural, cultural, legal, communications, and financial services. It would include the harmonization of a vast range of regulations and policies (economic, social, environmental, cultural, immigration, etc.) to achieve the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour.

This is an important point. The lesson to recall from the FTA is that what was initially presented as a proposal for a conventionally defined free trade agreement resulted in a comprehensive deep economic integration agreement that went far beyond the border into the very heart of domestic policy-making power. An alleged customs union negotiation would be similarly open-ended, making it hard in advance to fully evaluate its costs. We also know from the FTA experience that much will be surrendered for little gain.

The standard economic case for a customs union is that removing rules of origin (which currently prevent back-door entry of imports from a non-member country into the NAFTA area through a member that has lower tariffs on the those imports) will eliminate costly administrative procedures and thereby reduce transaction costs of doing business. Proponents have built economic models that greatly exaggerate the overall efficiency gains to the economy (2-3% of GDP). Many of us remember the wildly exaggerated estimates of economic benefits of tariff elimination generated by similar models during the FTA debate. Nor do they mention possible costs of removing rules of origin as an incentive to source production within Canada. But the focus on rules of origin is a diversion The far greater cost is that a common trade policy—given the huge difference in power—would mean effectively handing over Canada’s trade policy to U.S. authorities. It would have huge implications for both our domestic institutions and our relations with the rest of the world.

Contrary to proponents’ claims that Canada’s positions and protections in multilateral trade agreements, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), are very similar to those of the U.S., there are in fact major differences between them, affecting crucial public policy areas. They include public services such as health, education, and other social services which, unlike in the U.S., are not organized on market principles; they include cultural industries, which are subsidized and regulated in direct opposition to free trade principles. Also on the table would be agricultural marketing boards, the Canadian Wheat Board, telecommunications, and banking. The U.S. has long objected to these policies and would definitely target them for elimination. In heavily protected U.S. sectors such as sugar, textiles, beef and tropical fruits, Canada would ironically be pushed to raise its tariffs to U.S. levels. It would mean complying with U.S. trade embargoes on Iran and Cuba and ending Canadian trade preferences with, for example, Commonwealth countries. And it would foreclose future independent policy initiatives. Imagine, for example, under a common trade policy persuading American drug companies and policy-makers to allow the export of cheap generic AIDS drugs to poor countries.

If, like the FTA, a negotiation were to go beyond the traditional scope of a customs union, the potential for ceding regulatory and policy space would grow exponentially. A major Canadian objective would obviously be exemption from U.S. trade protection laws. But the U.S. Congress would insist that this be off-limits and would (as it does now) say that, if Canada wants exclusion from U.S. trade laws, it has merely to adopt U.S.-style laws and practices.

Since the signing of the Free Trade Agreement, Canada's economic life has become deeply integrated into a newly developed North American economy dominated and directed by U.S. corporate and government interests. The results of this integration are now clear. As critics predicted, the free flow of capital without government regulation has resulted in job losses - 276,000 high-paying industrial jobs have been lost - and we are now even more dependent on the American economy as a destination of our exports, and therefore less able to direct our own economy.

Economic growth in the 10-plus years of free trade has been the worst since the 1930s. Following the deregulation imperative of free trade, we have both abandoned the tools of industrial development that brought us the auto industry and deliberately pursued policies that weaken the domestic economy in the interests of trade. By pursuing trade with a low Canadian dollar we have exposed Canadian industry to the most extensive and prolonged sell-off of Canadian assets in our history.

The results of this for ordinary working Canadians have been the longest period of stagnation in standard of living levels in the country's history, a dramatic erosion of social programs and protection for workers, extreme levels of economic insecurity for millions of workers and their families, and a loss of democratic control by citizens over the future of their communities. All of these economic facts can be traced primarily to the FTA and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The nature of those binding and legal agreements prevents from reconsidering our options.

After a decade of rapid integration with the United States and the harmonization of public policy with that country, Canada is experiencing the fastest and most dramatic increases in social and economic inequality in its history. The severe erosion of programs such as UI/EI, social assistance and income redistribution, and the erosion of our progressive tax system, have systematically changed the relationship between individual citizens and their community - because government is a reflection of community. As citizens perceive government as less and less relevant to them, we feel less and less commitment to the collective that is neighbourhood, community and country.

Economic integration with the United States is changing our very definition and conception of culture and therefore our sense of who we are. In the United States, culture is seen as a commodity no different from any other commodity - it is equated with entertainment in the marketplace. Canada's efforts to promote our unique identity and reflect it to ourselves confront increased burdens as the United States watches over any "unfair subsidies" to our so-called "cultural industries." As we become integrated with the most powerful example of consumer society in the world, we face the threat of commodification of our cultural traditions and their gradual assimilation into the American entertainment industry.

When Canada signed the FTA and NAFTA it agreed to do what literally no other country in the world has ever agreed to. It agreed to give up, forever (barring the abrogation of the trade agreements themselves), the legislative and regulatory authority to protect and conserve the country's energy resources for its own needs. In effect, we have completely abandoned that part of our national sovereignty that allowed us to determine our energy policy based on the current and future needs of Canadian consumers - both individual and industrial. It is perhaps the most stunning and dramatic example of the abandonment of the national interest by any government in the history of Canada.

But it is not just oil and gas that have been affected by our free trade relationship with the United States. The free trade imperative is now threatening to force deregulation of electricity as well. Our water is threatened by provisions in NAFTA that define water as a "good" and therefore tradable, opening up the possibility that U.S. water shortages will be met by the diversion of Canadian rivers.

Canada's environment is increasingly threatened by the nearly total integration of the North American economy. Canada's ability to meet the requirements of environmental treaties has already been seriously compromised by a NAFTA case that successfully challenged our attempt to halt the cross-border movement of toxic waste. Since the signing of the free trade agreement the federal government has attempted to pass just two new pieces of environmental legislation. Both failed the free trade test and were, in effect, overturned by the provisions of NAFTA. It is impossible to know how many other pieces of legislation were considered by the government but rejected. The chill effect - declining to pass legislation for fear it will attract a costly NAFTA or WTO challenge - has crippled Canada's ability to pass laws and regulations to protect its own environment.

For decades Canada occupied a unique and often very difficult terrain in the international field. A small country by population standards and dwarfed by the American colossus on its border, Canada nonetheless wielded the influence of a middle power much larger than its size would have suggested. We were once seen by developing countries and other smaller powers as a voice of internationalism and multilateralism. We often championed human rights and took a leading role in the boycott of the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Canada's foreign aid was generous and the Canadian International Development Agency had a reputation for taking a genuine interest in development issues. It was not just an agency promoting Canadian industry and foreign trade. Since the 1960s Canada developed and maintained a reputation for being a nation committed to peacekeeping, indeed defined the modern notion of that international role. The past 13 years of the new free trade relationship with the United States, in which Canada's commitment to free-market policies of economic globalization has increased, have witnessed a fundamental shift in Canada's foreign policy and its peacekeeping tradition. Right now, Canada has soldiers fighting in an undeclared war and the Canadian command has absolutely no say in directing them. They are not peacekeepers; they are not even Canadian soldiers. They are, in effect, American conscripts.

If Canada was to go along the United States on the integration of Canadian forces under the new U.S. Northern Command, or on ballistic missile defense, Canada would squander the respect Canada gained within the international community for its stand on the Iraq war, reinforcing the image of Canada as a mere proxy for the superpower.

Canada's generous foreign aid policy has been replaced by a diminished contribution to developing nations and an extremely aggressive trade policy that mimics that of the United States and is in complete support of the structural adjustment policies of the IMF and the World Bank. CIDA is now a shameless promoter of Canadian industry - including the nuclear industry - and has tarnished its reputation as a development agency. Canada, partly through deliberate policy shifts and partly because it feels it cannot risk offending what is now its almost exclusive trading partner, has become little more than an echo of American foreign policy interests.

In the context of the new imperatives of the economic globalization, both sovereignty and democracy have suffered. Economic globalization has demanded of nations that they give up those aspects of sovereignty that allow for democracy. A nation's ability to regulate and guide economic development and the actions of capital are key to a nation's well-being in a free market system. The signing of the FTA and NAFTA have fundamentally altered Canada's sovereignty and its democracy. In order for Canada to create a "level playing field" with the United States it has systematically gutted its social programs, its progressive tax system, its commitment to industrial development, and its laws and regulations balancing the power of employees and employers.

In order to accomplish this free trade objective, the Canadian and provincial governments and other political institutions have gone to great lengths to lower Canadians' expectations of democratic governance. Using scare tactics regarding the large deficits of the early 1990s, the deliberate misrepresentation of government employees, huge cuts to health and education budgets, and a relentless campaign to promote tax cuts, governments at all levels have convinced many Canadians that their values can no longer be reflected in government policy. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that as a result of this campaign, and the cuts to government services, democracy in Canada is in crisis. Unprecedented levels of cynicism and anger toward government and political parties have led to the lowest voter turn-outs in the country's history.

The denigration of Canadian political institutions and democracy has been accompanied by a growing and alarming disregard for civil liberties and human rights in this country. Nowhere is the link between globalization and trade and the downsizing of democracy more obvious. The rapid Americanization of Canada's institutions and political culture demands both long-term and immediate action. Only by giving Canadians a genuine opportunity to engage in a dialogue about their country and its future direction can this alarming erosion of democratic participation and the resulting decline of the nation be halted and eventually reversed.

The aftermath of September 11 taught us a great deal about how deeper economic integration has heightened our vulnerability. It reminded us that the Bush administration will not hesitate to unilaterally rewrite the terms and conditions of entry into its market, regardless of NAFTA; it will not hesitate to link our compliance with its security demands to access to the United States market. It reminded us that we have a border and that it matters. It reminded us that we are different and that our different laws and institutions are under siege. People are beginning to connect integration and loss of independence: NAFTA meant deeper economic integration and increased vulnerability which, with September 11, meant the Smart Border Accord, which in turn meant pressure for still deeper integration.

To want to chart a different course does not imply a better course. This is not about moral superiority, or being anti-American. It is simply that we have different values and interests. We want to be able to reaffirm and preserve our founding myths, our historical experiences, and the values that have shaped and defined us. We want our laws and institutions to reflect our unique social character and our successful blend of individual and collective rights. We want to chart a course that affirms our highly original political experiment: our complex (tri-national and multicultural) federation with its long and extraordinary history of resolving tensions and conflicts peacefully. We also want, as we have in the past, to make our mark in the world: to help strengthen the fabric of international law, to advance world peace, social justice, democracy, and the environmental sustainability of the planet.

Good bye NAFTA, this is your Requiem

President Bush, his Administration and the Republican Congress must be communists disguise as republicans. They have passed legislation to make it easy for American multinationals to invest their capitals outside the U.S.A. especially in China and all over Asia. Barriers to globalization were knocked down, and now globalization is the norm. The effect of such a legislation has been a movement of capitals out of the U.S.A. Surely, the 34 member nations of the Americas do not need of such model as a leader of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)

. The American leadership has shown to be a disaster at home and abroad. Following President Bush legislation American multinationals become more richer at the expenses of everyone in America. Not a good scenario! In 2005, watch yourself Brazil as you got yourself a ticket on the Titanic with America as Captain.

The American leadership has shown to be a disaster at home and abroad. Following President Bush legislation American multinationals become even more richer at the expenses of everyone else in America. Not a good scenario! In 2005, watch yourself Brazil as you got yourself a ticket on the Titanic with America as Captain.

A trade partnership between nations, or an economical agreement is about the control of a nation by the other. Rich countries manipulate trade agreements in order to ensure profitability. What is trade when the US military is taken over a nation's resources? Trade has no meaning except when the US is getting richer at the expenses of all other nations, including Canada, and at the expenses of the global life-support systems. The military is used against domestic dissidents, like a police force. It is also used to expand markets and keep international dissidents in line. Governments of poor countries that try to take control of their own resources and develop their own economies (instead of remaining areas of cheap labour and raw materials for rich countries) are declared enemies, terrorists, and attacked, officially or otherwise. Nicaragua, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East are examples. U.S. military is "to protect U.S. interests and investments" and that includes making other nations safe for U.S multinational corporations. And that is exactly what is happening in the Middle East where the U.S. military is protecting its strategic economic interests especially the continue flow of oil and gas at the cheapest price, thus making global warming worst by ten-fold. We have estimated that there is, worldwide, one hundred years left of oil and most of it is found in the Middle East. The U.S. has taken over the oil for its citizens back home.

We have estimated that there is, worldwide, one hundred years left of oil and most of it is found in the Middle East. The U.S. has taken over the oil for its citizens back home.

The argument for 'free trade' states that countries should specialize in certain products that they are good at producing and buy from other countries what they are not good at producing, so that the economy is more efficient. What kind of efficiency is it when the pieces of a product are sent half way around the world to be assembled in a country with cheap labour, then shipped back to be sold? It may be profitable, but it is a waste of time and energy as well as resources, and moving products this way is not environmentally friendly and is a threat to the global life-support systems. What kind of efficiency is that? Huge amounts of money are spent on marketing to get people to buy things that they don't need. Where is the efficiency in that?

Because governments of poor nations had to promote 'free trade', this situation cause barriers to trade to be eliminated and now we are seeing the globalization of 'free trade'. Poor nations are now asked to produce only the products they are good at producing and buy from other countries the products they are not as good at producing. This way the economy of a nation will function at maximum efficiency. So now governments are told to open up their borders and to stop meddling in markets, so that competition will be free internationally. Often what is called trade is really moving of resources across borders between subsidiaries of the same corporation. Nothing to do with free competition. Economic activity is centrally-managed and planned by the corporate elite. Capital move freely across borders as restrictions on the flow of money have been removed. Corporations can relocate their operations to the countries with the lowest wages, the least active unions and the lowest environmental standards. The reality is that more polluting industries are encouraged to relocate to poorer countries. A polluting industry tends to increase the chances that people in the surrounding area will have health problems. If pollution kills someone or makes them unable to work, the cost to the economy, or to the industry in the case of a law-suit, would be roughly equal to the projected wages that the person would have earned in the rest of their life. In a country with low life expectancy and low wages, this cost will be lessened. It costs less to dump a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country.

Of course it is a bad idea to be a member of the World Trade Organization ( WTO) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). There are no advantages! It just does not work for anyone except when you have an army to knock down any member who does not do your five wishes and plus. Memberships in the WTO and the FTAA are not needed and nations should instead seek relationships with fewer other nations only if needed. Certainly it is better to seek an economic relationship with another nation we can trust than with a hundred nations we have no control on and everyone of those nations has a say in the governing of our nation, its environment and social structure. WTO only offers illusions to profit the few wealthiest people on Earth. They say "become an industrialized nation as we are". But that is the biggest illusion of all. To become an industrialized nation is far from being the best solution. The best way and solution for any nation is to follow the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. Right on top of the scale are the ecological rights, the global life-support systems, and the primordial human rights of this generation and of the next generation.

Global Community Earth Government guarantees Member Nations the Human and Earth Rights described in Sections 1, 2, and 3 on the Scale, and that means providing citizens of our Member Nations with:

1.     Ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems
2.     Primordial human rights

2.1     Security
2.2     Respect and Care for the Community of Life
2.3     Human Dignity
2.4     Freedoms
2.5     Equality before the law
2.6     Solidarity
2.7     Universal health care, education, retirement security and employment services to every Global Community citizen
2.8     Earth Ministry of Health
2.9     Legal rights

3.     The ecological rights, the protection of the global life-support systems and the primordial human rights of future generations

Economic and social rights come next and are not the most important. That makes a lot of sense! The effect of IMF and World Bank policies in the world caused the destruction of the economies of the poor nations (now we call them 'developing' countries). They impoverished the people by taking away basic services and devaluating their currency. They opened up the national economy to be ravaged by competition with richer nations. Poverty lead to other problems causing the social break-down and ecological destruction of a poor nation.


	Memberships in the WTO and the FTAA are not needed and nations should instead seek relationships with fewer other nations only if needed. Certainly it is better to seek an economic relationship with another nation we can trust than with a hundred nations we have no control on and everyone of those nations has a say in the governing of our nation, its environment and social structure.

Free trade and the Way of Life of the West that is, the way of doing business, have been given a bad reputation in the world, especially in the Middle East where oil and arms sales have always been strategic interests of several Western nations. The West has relentlessly exploited the oil producing nations of the Middle East and elsewhere. By their behavior and ways of doing things, America and the European Union nations have shown that free trade and globalization meant the absence of ethical and moral values, the absence of responsibility and accountability to products and people, abuses of human rights, cause for terrorism, social and economic injustice, poverty, and pollution. They have given to trade a bad name.

The WTO tribunal is illegal and arbitrary. It is not a Higher Court such as the Earth Court of Justice. It has no base for Justice.

The effects of globalization and the creation of planetary trade blocks give rise to global problems such as:

*         unemployment in industrial nations
*         poverty increases world-wide ~ entire countries in a state of starvation
*         environmental degradation
*         national interests of a country changing and becoming more trade oriented and trying to go with the wave of global trade
*         international interests of a country take prime importance
*         in developing countries, national debts constrict the institutions of the national state and contribute to the destruction of the economic activity which, in turn, as the effect of creating unemployment
*         national currencies of many countries are affected by national debts and contribute in destroying social life, creating ethnic conflicts and civil wars
*         the large corporation is becoming larger and getting more power and control falls into the hands of a few people
*         globalization is another way of keeping control on our lives in the hands of a few people
*         with globalization we have no control and no say in our future and the world becomes a game played by a few people just as it has always been throughout history, leading to revolutions and war
*         with globalization there is no sense of direction and meaning, no security for the individual, just a few people getting richer and controlling us all

Global Community Earth Government is requesting all members of the Free Trade Area of the Americas(FTAA) and of the World Trade Organization(WTO) to change their ways by:

1. building social and environmental concerns into their trade rules;
2. including ethical and moral values, responsibility and accountability in all situations and places;
3. developing a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations;
4. making a transition from global competition to global co-operation which allows communities the freedom to pursue social and environmental objectives;
5. assuring that globalization and planetary trading blocks serve the Global Community, the Human Family;
6. developing a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards;
7. adopting the Scale of Human and Earth Rights;
8. becoming a Global Community Citizen ; and
9. helping Member Nations be a part of the Global Community Earth Government.

Today the watchdog, the 'enforcer' for 'free trade', and also the bedfellow of both the IMF and the World Bank, is the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO is responsible for monitoring national trading policies, handling trade disputes, and enforcing the GATT agreements. The World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) encourage the privatization of public services and the settling of international disputes their own way. Any government, acting on behalf of a corporation, can challenge the acts of another government if they "interfere with trade." Complaints are taken to a WTO dispute resolution body which then make a binding decision. The WTO has forced governments to lower their environmental standards in favour of a corporation to allow more pollution into the environment (there are thousands of cases but let just mention the waste oil let go in ocean waters by oil tankers), and that is a form of anti-government gone bad with absolute no respect or care for life and the global-life support systems. Corporations can sue governments if they harm their profits through any unfair barriers to trade. NAFTA and WTO tribunals usually rule in favor of corporations. So now we really have a new definition for the word 'property' to mean both what is currently owned and profits that could potentially be made. To compensate, we propose a new definition for 'pollution' and 'human destruction' to mean the pollution and human destruction that the policies of the IMF, World Bank and WTO are causing now in the world plus the pollution and human destruction that they will cause in the future to the next generations. By providing corporations with a mean to override governmental decisions, NAFTA and the WTO (and the proposed FTAA) shift power even more into the hands of the elite. And that is also a form of anti-government.

The global economy can be affected by the deregulation in the movement of capital and thus by speculation. Money is made off tiny fluctuations in the relative prices of currencies. Speculation makes it possible for huge amounts of money to be transferred half-way around the world in a matter of seconds. Whereas world trade associated with actual goods and services is estimated at $7 trillion a year, speculation is estimated at $1.5 trillion a day. If a country's economy starts to slow, billions of dollars can be transferred out of the country instantaneously, which can significantly affect its economy and the people. This has been the case in 1997 of a number of East Asia countries. They were bankrupted by speculation. The people were enormously affected for the worst. Speculation can exert tremendous pressure on the internal politics of a country. It can bankrupt a country's economy. Speculation should be de-institutionalized. Humanity has no real need for speculation, and it does way more damage than good.

'Free trade' now means the removal of:

a) tariffs and similar restrictions on the easy flow of capital (and that includes no global tax on transactions stemming from speculation), and
b) non-tariffs barriers to trade.

That is how America was bankrupted. Capitals are flowing out of America. American multinationals invest in China and all over Asia instead of America. The few wealthiest mega-corporations are getting richer at the expenses of all Americans.

Rich countries manipulate trade agreements in order to ensure profitability. Their governments insist on tariffs and protectionism in areas in which they are weak. For instance, Canada and the USA are now going through the process of an economic war in the softwood industry. The imposition of a 29 percent tariff on softwood lumber by the U.S. Commerce Department shows that Canadians were duped by the Free Trade Agreement(FTA) and NAFTA. The U.S. Government protectionism is itself aimed at reducing the value of the Canadian companies just long enough for American competitors to acquire them. Many Canadian industries have already been bought by US competitors. The energy sector is one of them. Free trade opens up a poor country's economy to competition with strong, developed, well-financed, multinational corporations. In consequence, most of the local producers and manufacturers go out of business thus leaving a poor country's economy entirely in the hands of the transnational elite. It is a form of colonization and of world anti-government. Rich countries force poorer countries to open up their markets, and then take them over.

There is no such thing an honest 'free trade' with the U.S. It is only free for oil, gas and electricity, which they desperately need and not free for products where American voters demand protection. U.S. protectionist policies are applied at the very moment when President George W. Bush is bullying the world to open its borders to American products and investment. The U.S. Government protectionism is itself aimed at reducing the value of the Canadian companies just long enough for American competitors to acquire them. Canada must abrogate NAFTA and replace it with a fair trade treaty which would restore the bargaining chips we gave away to the Americans.

The US government and the American corporate people are protecting their own people at the cost of deteriorating significantly the Canadina-USA relationship. We, as Canadians, certainly have the right to take the problem to the WTO and to retaliate in other commercial and industrial sectors. This creates the illusion that the trade body and its tribunal are protecting a fair trade. But it is just that an illusion.

What to do about this situation? Here in the Americas, we are planning to do just the opposite of a democracy: choosing an economic model totally based on profit making. The Summit of the Americas in Quebec city gave green light to the corporate sector with no checks. If the corporate sector was truly willing to honestly do such checks and balances then it should not matter to them to have the system put in place before they sign such an agreement. Global Community Earth Government is proposing to oversee such a system be put in place to the satisfaction of Global Community.

The Summit of the Americas was a meeting of the 34 National Governments of every country in North, Central, South America and the Caribbean (except Cuba). The meeting was held April 20-22, 2001, in Quebec City. There was a discussion to extend the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) throughout the Americas to form the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) by 2005. The FTAA will follow the World Trade Organization (WTO) guidelines for settling disputes. The Organization of American States (OAS) manages implementation of this process. Member countries are encouraged to change their economic infrastructures to be in line with the free trade policies of the FTAA. Many member countries have already prioritised economic growth over social aspects and human rights.

The FTAA has been shown to be:

A)     heavily supportive of privatization of health care and education
B)     in favor of complete trade liberalisation
C)     using unsustainable and exploitative production contributing to global deforestation, air pollution, climat change, desertification and loss of topsoil
D)     guaranteeing less control over:

*     the management of natural resources
*     environmental and safety standards
E)      giving more control to profit driven multinational corporations and investors leading to environmental degradation and human right abuses especially of women

Global Community Earth Government is aware of what the 34 National Governments are trying to achieve and decided to help them designing an agreement between themselves in line with the Global Constitution of our organization. Several Articles developed especially to help you find sound solutions.

Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed by Canada, Mexico and the U.S. in 1994 describes the right of foreign investors on national governments. These rights will be intensified in the FTAA. It lets corporations sue governments directly for breaching trade deals they never signed. Companies can claim damages when they believe their rights under the trade pact have been violated by government regulations or decisions. They are allowed to sue for anything that gets in the way of profits. This elevates corporate rights far beyond those of the average citizen and their human rights. In the past, it has led government to cancel anti-pollution or environmental measures. The agreement disempower people and communities. It is the most powerful corporate tool to challenge democratic governance. In effect, no government should enter into an agreement such as the FTAA when citizens know it violates their own constitution. A constitutional referendum and an election with the issue of the FTAA as a priority would have to be conducted by each member nation before considering such an agreement. Government must negotiate the FTAA openly, transparently and honestly.

The FTAA will include a new constitution leading to rights and freedoms for corporations that override national rights. Investments will be protected in the agreement and investors will not lose their business as a result of government expropriation. The agreement is entirely business oriented. Profit is the goal to achieve. Business leaders are successful as long as they produce profits for their shareholders. Furthermore, they have to account for their performance every quarter, and they are not free to act in ways that would jeopardize their company’s financial health. The agreement would be a strong incentive to businesses to obtain and accumulate profits.

The World Trade Organization, foreign corporations and world business leaders claim that the FTAA agreement will bring sweeping democracy to all of the Americas. They claim trade globalization is a forerunner of democracy in nations where it is non-existent. Global Community Earth Government does not believe democracy will automatically succeed in a global free market. In fact, the FTAA is itself a flagrant abuse of democracy.

The FTAA will entrench corporate power at the expense of democratically elected officials from local communities, municipal governments, provincial governments, national governments and states. Such a free trade agreement is a form of "world anti-government" (such as the European Union block) as citizens lose the ability to act in their best interests and find sound solutions to their own problems. Citizens become disconnected with the decision-making process. In such scenario, democratic principles lose meaning and no longer prevail.

All that we have worked for over the past decades to build sustainable communities will be all gone in the signing of an agreement, the FTAA. People were never asked to discuss and were never invited in its development. The principles of a sustainable development are let go and replaced by the desire of the world business leaders to make larger profits.

Global Community Earth Government believe all citizens have the right to share the wealth in the world. Foreign investment and the trade agreement must protect and improve social and environmental rights, not just the economy. A sustainable development in the hemisphere would mean finding a sound balance among the interactions designed to create a healthy economic growth, preserve environmental quality, make a wise use of our resources, and enhance social benefits. Free trade cannot proceed at the expense of the environment, labour rights, human rights and the sovereignty of a nation. The FTAA will lead to an increase in poverty by giving investor rights priority over government decision-making. Employers will be looking for more concessions from workers. Small businesses will find it more difficult to grow and compete against large corporations.

People are concerned about the lack of public consultation in free trade negotiations. The agreement is being negotiated without public scrutiny. The actual process of developing the FTAA is itself undemocratic as it excludes anyone but government officials and business interests. Civil society groups were left outside the gates during the conference. The decisions by trade bodies must not be allowed to take away the rights and responsibilities of local communities. A local community will find it impossible to make decisions about planning, public health, local control over water, waste, zoning, or environmental issues because the rights of corporations to profits would be deemed to take precedence.

The process of the Summit of the Americas had several other wrongdoings: decisions were made in secrecy; misappropriation of taxpayers’ money; violent suppression of free speech; and the sacrifice of Canadian interests for the profit of big corporations. None of the national governments had a referendum on the free trade issue. There were no discussions at home and in communities. People were not asked for their opinions and recommendations. Freedom of speech is a major aspect of democracy. So where is democracy? Citizens were not told what is at stake in the trade deal. The process of developing an agreement must include all citizens in order for democracy to expand freely across the Americas and Caribbean.

Other implications of the FTAA:

a)         Services offered to the public can be managed by private, foreign providers; these providers are allowed to bid for contracts in all sectors such as energy, transportation, agriculture, forestry, fishery, health, education, sewer and water services. Truly, all sectors of life are affected.
b)         Resources are opened for trade and may no longer be controlled by a national government; energy, rain forests and water are affected. In effect, business leaders of large corporations become the real owners of our resources.
c)        Environmental decisions, education initiatives, health policies and cultural programs will be affected if they represent a threat to a corporation’s potential profit.
d)         Canadians will have to accept continental economic and social policies and the U.S. dollars as our currency. The U.S. dollars will eventually become the currency of all 34 member nations. What it means to be a Canadian will be gradually diluted to fulfill the desires of business leaders. What it means to be a citizen in any country will be diluted to nothing.
e)        Government will no longer have an independent financial policy.
f)         Labour rights will be subjected to the primary goal of making profit.
g)        Viability of social programs in a community will be subjected to scrutiny and control by the FTAA.
h)         Operation of government will be restrained and dependent on economic goals.
i)        The sovereignty of a nation will be chipped away. Government will give away sovereign and constitutional powers to secret FTAA tribunals whose only goals and objectives are to protect investments and investors.
j)         The quality of life of every nation in the hemisphere will be diminished and subjected to economic goals.
k)         Environmental degradation: lowering of plant and biomass diversity, increase of air pollution, natural resource depletion and pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, endangerment and extinction of life species. The legacy to our children and to the future generations thereafter will be a wasteland.
l)        U.S. military is "to protect U.S. interests and investments" and that includes making other nations safe for U.S multinational corporations. When will the military issue be discussed? How will the military be part of the FTAA? Are we seeing here in the Americas a scenario that has occurred in Europe before the Second World War? The FTAA should entrench a strong statement that says that military should not be an option as a solution to any situation arising in the hemisphere. The Earth Court of Justice was created to deal with any situation and, therefore, the military is not needed. The military should also be subjected to the Earth Court of Justice for any violation of human and Earth rights including environmental rights as defined by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

The military should also be subjected to the Earth Court of Justice for any violation of human and Earth rights including environmental rights as defined by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights.

m)         What impacts will the FTAA have on women and children, indigenous Peoples, on poverty?
n)         Degradation and disrespect of national standards (engineering, health, environmental, etc.).
o)         If U.S. interest rates go up what will be the impacts of the cost of debt servicing of the 32 (out of 34) poor countries? Investments in those nations have to be serviced through any export surplus.
p)         Future generations will be affected by entering into an agreement that obligates the present generation to irrevocable conditions. The FTAA would violate the basic principle of a sustainable development in the hemisphere and endanger the survival of Life on Earth.
q)         If Canada and the U.S. were serious about the FTAA and a sustainable development in the poorest nations would they not accept removing now all tariffs for the very poorest members?

NAFTA has led to the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs in Canadian plants as companies relocated to Mexico to take advantage of the cheaper and weaker environmental and safety standards. Thus we are now seing a flow of capitals out of Canada to Asian countries. Rich Canadians mega-corporations are taking their profit elsewhere at the expenses of Canadians and the Canadian economy. The same thing will happen with the new agreement. The FTAA will have the effect of lowering down wages and working conditions in Canada and in the U.S. thereby adding more profits to business leaders.

The human rights abuse and environmental degradation are two of the many unresolved social issues in countries that want the trade agreement. Human rights violations would constitute unfair trade subsidies.

The process of designing the FTAA is obviously undemocratic and will lead to an "unsustainable development". Earth Communityhas worked hard to find sound solutions and better ways to improve the quality of our lives and that of the future generations. We are not going to let go the "Belief, Values, Principles and Aspirations of the Global Community Earth Government" . We will form our own ways to manage the Americas and the Caribbean. We will form the Global Community Earth Government . The people of the Americas and Caribbean will be first in forming Earth Government to manage the hemisphere.

Global Community Earth Government has initiated a global dialogue to discuss a sustainable development as a widely-discussed alternative to currently unsustainable economic development patterns. It is all the more attractive because it may be cast in terms compatible with the market economy. However, there must be a social dimension to the concept, a vision, for it to become a viable alternative to unrestrained economic growth. The Earth is no longer a self-regulating planetary system. Its future will depend on human action and the continuation of natural ecosystems will be achieved because people want them to be preserved. Acceptance of sustainable development by society may depend on cultural values and even spiritual notions about the relationship of humankind to the Earth.

People will not accept a view of sustainable development that recreates a technologically more advanced version of a basic peasant society, especially if they have only recently developed economically. For societies to accept a sustainable development and to continue to grow within, the new way of living must accept cultural diversity, encourage individual expression, allow social change, offer opportunity, and examine values. There must be ways to permit opportunity and growth without ecological compromise. Achieving sustainable development may therefore be linked with policies emphasizing community, the value of information, originality in ideas, and the arts.

Humanity embarks on a new path in history, the inevitability of World societies living, sharing, and creating global economic symbiotical relationships interactively is, beyond doubt, that which we must confront and making sure these relationships are for the good of all humanity. Our creativity today may influence tomorrow's socio-economic strategies and contribute to the evolution of human societies - an evolution directed towards a global partnership with each other, and, most importantly, with our natural environment. Many socio-political infrastructures created for global industries neglect the environment and do not promote environmental sustainability. It is proposed the restructuring of knowledge that governs society, a strategy aimed to change the focus of the capitalist economy and considered Indigenous peoples and their nurturing of spiritual and environmental partnership with nature - a valuable and integral part of their socio-economic structure.

A corporation will now be required to operate its business as per global ehtics:

*        Be concerned with issues such as climate change, bio-diversity, pollution prevention and adopt high standards
*         Minimize environmental degradation and health impacts
*        Be responsible for the environmental impact of its products and services throughout their cycle
*         Adopt a wide environmental code, and policies, health and safety practices and procedures aimed at reducing resource and energy use in each stage of a product or service life-cycle
*         Set up appropriate management systems to implement policies
*         Conduct annual checks and balances and provide reports to the community
*         Respect the political jurisdiction of national communities
*         Respect human rights, social and cultural rights
*         Recognize its political and economic impact on local communities
*         Contribute to the long-term social, cultural, environmental and economic sustainability of the local communities
*         Respect the rights of indigenous peoples, their culture and land, and their religious and social customs; provide employment and training opportunities
*         Ensure that each employee is treated with respect and dignity and is not subjected to any physical, sexual, psychological or verbal harassment or abuse
*         Respect employees' right to freedom of association, labour organization, and free collective bargaining
*         Provide equal pay for work of equal value
*         Recognize the responsibilities of all workers to their families, and provide for maternity leave, and paternity leave
*         Ensure that their be no barriers to the full participation of women within the company
*         Participate in the creation of child care centres and centres for the elderly and persons with disabilities where appropriate
*         Ensure no discrimination on grounds of race, ethnicity, or culture
*         Ensure that persons with disabilities who apply for jobs with the company receive fair treatment and are considered solely on their ability to do the job; provide resources and facilities which enable them to achieve progression in employment in the company
*         Provide training to all employees to conduct their activities in an environmentally responsible manner
*         Work with organizations concerned with children's rights, human rights and labour rights to ensure that young workers are not exploited
*         Ensure that a mechanism is in place to address ethical issues of concern raised by employees
*         Make sure that the company's policies balance the interests of managers, shareholders, employees, and other affected parties
*         Adhere to international standards and protocols relevant to its products and services
*         Adopt marketing practices which protect consumers and ensure the safety of all products
*         Conduct or support research on the environmental impacts of raw materials, products, processes, emissions and wastes associates with the company and on the means of minimizing such adverse impacts
*         Make a sustainable use of renewable natural resources such as water, soils and forests
*         Conserve non-renewable natural resources through efficient use and careful planning
*         Conserve energy and improve energy efficiency of internal operations and of the goods and services being sold

Global Community Earth Government will do everything possible to give free trade the proper guidance for humanity. Free trade will become a global co-operation between all nations. The kind of behaviour that happened in the Middle East and in many other parts of the world will not be allowed again.

There are no such thing as an anti-globalization movement as we have defined and developed the concepts:
"a global community",
"the Global Community" ,
"global governance" ,
and the Global Constitution to handle the planetary problems within the spirit of a global co-operation.

And we are now proposing to world a federation of all Nations, Global Community Earth Government.

National governments and large corporations have taken the wrong direction by asserting that free trade in the world is about competing economically without any moral safeguards and accountability to peoples and the environment. The proper and only way is for Free Trade to become a global co-operation between all nations. Surely, if we can cooperate in fighting against terrorism, then we should also be able to cooperate in fighting against the effects of the type Free Trade and the emergence of the planetary trading blocks as applied by national governments members of the World Trade Organization(WTO). It has already been shown that these effects will be desastrous socially and environmentally and are a direct threat to the existence of Life on Earth. The Earth Community is proposing a solution that the process of trading within the planetary trading blocks be changed from a spirit of global competition to that of global economic cooperation.

Global Community Earth Government has made clear that globalization and planetary trading blocks should be serving the Global Community and not the other way around, the people around the world serving the very few rich people. The September 11 event was the result of bad trading of arms and oil in the Middle East. By applying proper moral safeguards and accepting responsibility and accountability of all products (arms and oil in this case), we would make free trade and globalization serving the Human Family.

Over its long past history trade has never evolved to require from the trading partners to become legally and morally responsible and accountable for their products from beginning to end. At the end the product becomes a waste and it needs to be properly dispose of. Now trade must be given a new impetus to be in line with the global concepts of the New Age Civilization. You manufacture, produce, mine, farm or create a product, you become legally and morally responsible and accountable of your product from beginning to end (to the point where it actually becomes a waste; you are also responsible for the proper disposable of the waste). This product may be anything and everything from oil & gas, weapons, war products, to genetically engineered food products. All consumer products. All medicinal products! All pharmaceutical products! In order words, a person becomes responsible and accountable for anything and everything in his or her life.

Global Community Earth Government is recommending to the developing nations not to make deals with the developed countries. Do not accept money as loans from the IMF and World Bank. Do not become a member of the WTO. Your best chance for survival is to build sustainable communities in your country. If you do need to make a deal with another nation, it must be a symbiotical relationship. You have no need of a global membership on any kind. It would destroy you.

The debt of the poor nations or 'developing nations' to the rich nations was in actuality a form of global tax and therefore the poor or 'developing' nations dont have to pay it back. In fact poor nations should expect way more money as tax by the rich nations and not as loans. The state of the world today is the result of a specific set of interlocking institutions: the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. These institutions are designed to generate massive wealth for the few and poverty for the rest. The same people who make the decisions in government and corporation make the profit. They create a tight concentration of power. Together they are a form of anti-government whose only goal is profit. The IMF, through Structural Adjustment Programs, now directly runs the economies of over 70 countries. That means that about 1000 economists and bureaucrats control the economic policies for 1.4 billion people in these countries. That is a form of anti-government. The people that profit most from the global economy are white people. The people who are most oppressed by the global economy are people of colour. Racism and sexism have become the norm. The entire planet is in a state of low intensity civil war. The ruling elite profit off of the exploitation of the rest of the world. The Earth Community Organization was looking for a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards, but there it was all along right on our eyes. The Earth Court of Justice will be asked to decide on the debt be changed into an actual tax to be paid by the rich nations to the poor nations, and to decide on the amount of tax to be paid. Developing nations will then be able to start rebuilding their communities as per the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and the Global Constitution. They will not have to satisfy the economic needs and wishes of the rich nations. The Earth Court of Justice will also be asked to rule illegal the activities of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO unless they become a part of a greater whole such as the Earth Ministry of Financial Institutions, a part of the future the Global Community Earth Government. These institutions will be controlled by the greater whole.

The effect of IMF and World Bank policies in the world caused the destruction of the economies of the poor nations (now we call them 'developing' countries). They impoverished the people by taking away basic services and devaluating their currency. They opened up the national economy to be ravaged by competition with richer nations. Poverty lead to other problems causing the ecological destruction of a poor nation. Environmental spending was diminished under a Structural Adjustment Program. More rainforest land had to be cleared to grow crops just to survive. The overall effect of the US policy within the IMF caused the famine in Somalia, the war in Rwanda, and many other international catastrophes. In the mean time the debt of the poor nation increased enormously. The longer a nation was under a Structural Adjustment Program, the more its debt increased. In 1999, the debt of the poor nations has reached $3 trillion dollars. While 'developing' countries receive loans and aid from sources such as the World Bank, the IMF and other banks in 'developed' countries, they pay back much more just to pay off the interest on their debts. The banks in 'developed' countries are doing very well and cashing in at the detriment of the poor nations. And so are the multinational corporations as the cost of doing business in poor nations gets even cheaper. Governments of rich nations benefit from what is happening as they gain power over governments of poor nations. The elite in poor nations benefit as well. Today, the personal wealth of Ferdinand Marcos, the former dictator of the Philippines, is estimated at $10 billion. All around the world there is a small elite class of officials, bureaucrats, technocrats and economists who make the decisions about the economic policy for most of the world, and they are also the ones who benefit from those policies at the expense of the rest of the world. The effect of IMF and World Bank policies created poverty and inequality in the world. Since 1950, the total dollar value of the world economy has increased 5-fold, while the number of people in absolute poverty has doubled. The 3 wealthiest people on the planet are now wealthier than 48 poorest countries. The total wealth of the 200 richest people in the world has more than doubled to a $1 trillion. Today about 1.3 billion people survive on less than a dollar a day, and about the same number do not have access to clean drinking water. Approximately 3 billion people live on less than 2 dollar a day; and 2 billion people are suffering from anaemia. The state of the world today is the result of a specific set of interlocking institutions: the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. These institutions are designed to generate massive wealth for the few and poverty for the rest. The same people who make the decisions in government and corporation make the profit. They create a tight concentration of power. Together they are a form of anti-government whose only goal is profit. The IMF, through Structural Adjustment Programs, now directly runs the economies of over 70 countries. That means that about 1000 economists and bureaucrats control the economic policies for 1.4 billion people in these countries. That is a form of anti-government. The people that profit most from the global economy are white people. The people who are most oppressed by the global economy are people of colour. Racism and sexism have become the norm. The entire planet is in a state of low intensity civil war. The ruling elite profit off of the exploitation of the rest of the world.

Over the years, the IMF and World Bank interacted with one another and still do today. The IMF looked after the new systems of fixed exchange rates by making exchange easy between different currencies thus making trade easy between countries. The IMF provided short-term emergency loans (5 years maximum to repay) to governments. The World Bank was to focus on long-term loans at low interest rates to allow European nations to rebuild and restore. Later on in the 1950s, after European nations had recovered from the war, the World Bank continued to exist by lending to the governments of poor nations especially in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Global Community Earth Government is calling for the creation of the Earth Court of Justice to rule that the debt of the poor nations or 'developing nations' to the rich nations was in actuality a form of global tax and therefore the poor or 'developing' nations dont have to pay it back. In fact poor nations should expect way more money as a tax by the rich nations and not as loans.

In 1973, US President R. Nixon decided to take America off the gold standard to devalue the US dollar. This US policy destroyed the system of fixed currency exchange rate. After this action, the effect on the global economy was felt positively by the rich nations of the world, currencies could no longer 'float' relative to each other and the debt of the poor nations increased as they were all created in US dollars. Then the World Bank loaned more dollars to the poor nations. Often the money was used for war purposes such as in the Philippines and Argentina. War equipment was bought from America, and this had a positive effect on the US economy. Poor nations saw their debt grow astronomically and were forced to make new loans just to pay for the interests. The IMF supplied more loans under the condition that the poor nations undergo "Structural Adjustment Programs". This had the effect that a poor nation's economic policy would be dictated by the IMF. The IMF simply said to the poor nations: do all you can to attract business and pay off your debts. The IMF and the World Bank are a form of anti-government gone bad as their policies brought poverty to more than half the population on Earth and are causing a major threat to the global life-support systems. Poor nations started to privatize many services and reduce spending on others so that they would have more money available for debt repayment. The overall effect was that governments were cutting on education, healthcare and subsidies to keep food prices affordable. Governments had to promote ' free trade ' and to devalue their currency. Now in a nation whose currency is worth less, all the costs of doing business are less and prices for imported goods increase. The IMF basically forced poor nations to focus their economy toward exports, especially cash crops such as coffee, sugar, cotton, etc. and raw materials such as copper and timber. In consequence of this, several nations produced the same products all at the same time and thus prices for those products went down enormously. The overall effect of the US policy within the IMF and the World Bank was to increase poverty and ecological destruction in the poor nations while the rich nations got richer.

Germain Dufour
President
Global Community Earth Government

http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GlobalConstitution/
globalcommunity@telus.net
GlobalConstitution@telus.net

Letter sent to the American People concerning victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, by Germain Dufour

Scale of Human and Earth Rights

Community rights, rights of 'direct democracy', are the rights that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) and after voting representatives democratically.

The Scale of Human and Earth Rights contains six (6) sections. Section 1 has more importance than all other sections below, and so on.

Concerning Sections 1, 2, and 3, it shall be Earth Government highest priority to guarantee these rights to Member Nations and to have proper lesgislation and implement and enforce global law as described in the Global Constitution.

Section 1. Ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems

Section 2. Primordial human rights

safety and security
have shelter
'clean' energy
a 'clean' and healthy environment
drink fresh water
breath clean air
eat a balance diet and
basic clothing.

Section 3.    The ecological rights, the protection of the global life-support systems and the primordial human rights of future generations

Concerning Sections 4, 5 and 6, it shall be the aim of Global Community Earth Government to secure these other rights for all global citizens within the federation of all nations, but without immediate guarantee of universal achievement and enforcement. These rights are defined as Directive Principles, obligating the Earth Government to pursue every reasonable means for universal realization and implementation.

Section 4.    Community rights, rights of 'direct democracy', the right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) and after voting representatives democratically

Section 5.    Economic rights (business and consumer rights, and their responsibilities and accountabilities) and social rights (civil and political rights)

Section 6.    Cultural rights and religious rights

Direct democracy as defined in the Global Constitution

As defined in Chapter 10.6.3, Chapter 9 Article 1, Chapter 10.2 Article 3, and Section 4 on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights of the Global Constitution, direct democracy is a community right. Direct democracy is the right of global citizens to hold referendums on any issue -- and to veto legislation.

Direct Democracy implies that:

*     Global Citizens are willing and able to participate fully in the decision making process on issues that most affect them.
*     Global Citizens should have full access to information on global affairs, and the conduct of global business should be open and transparent, with a well-developed global-wide communication system.
*     Global Parliament should always recognize that it is accountable to Global Citizens.
*     Direct democracy will encourage global citizen input into global policy, and enable Global Citizens to participate more actively in global affairs.
*     Direct democracy will raise the level of public awareness and encourage debate of key global issues.
*     Global Parliament can exercise the leadership necessary to become a model of effective “direct democracy” for all global communities.
*     A direct democracy global law gives Global Citizens and Global Parliament an effective and orderly way of addressing contentious issues.
*     A direct democracy global law strengthens the hand of Global Parliament by providing additional credibility in dealing with senior governments and non-elected bodies.
*     A direct democracy bylaw shows that Global Parliament has faith in its Global Citizens. Thus, Global Parliament in turn earns increased respect from Global Citizens.
*     Direct democracy does not mean government by referendum. Almost all Global Parliament decisions would continue to be made as they are now with the usual consultative processes. Few issues would be important and contentious enough to prompt referenda.

*     Initiative
*     Referendum including binding referenda
*     Recall

The second pillar can include the ability to hold a binding referendum on whether a given law should be scrapped. This effectively grants the populace a veto on government legislation. The third pillar gives the people the right to recall elected officials by petition and referendum.

In Canada, the use of citizens' assemblies (also known as an estates-general in the province of Quebec), involving citizen bodies chosen at random, is growing and avoids the disadvantages of older, more plebiscitary forms of direct democracy. The province of British Columbia recently set up a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in which members were chosen at random for each riding. The citizens' assembly has just recommended the province use Single Transferable Voting (STV) to elect the provincial legislature. In a referendum conducted on May 17, 2005, 57% of the voters approved by this new system of voting.

Germain Dufour
President
Global Community Earth Government

http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GlobalConstitution/

globalcommunity@telus.net

GlobalConstitution@telus.net

Group project for you: living the VISION

A group project for you: send us your own short version of the Global Constitution. It has to be developed from the actual longer version approved by Global Parliament. Depending on the level of participation, we may have different categories for this special project.
Global Parliament will be reviewing all proposals.
During the Ceremonies of Global Dialogue 2006,

a special Award

will be given to the group with the best short version.

Read the Table of Contents of the Global Constitution.

Access the complete version of the Global Constitution shown on a single page of over 1.61 MB.

Students' education

is also part of the theme of Global Dialogue 2006. There is a need to train the next generation in the skills of collaborating in the future management of global change, which will be vital to survival. Students of all levels (school, college, technical, university) are invited to participate in Global Community projects. They are asked to produce any creative work of their vision of what the Global Community together can accomplish ~ in the fields of zoology, biology, on history, on geography, on social and political sciences, on agriculture, energy, earth sciences, forestry, communications, wilderness, pollution, on the water supplies of the world, poverty, employment, social justice, human rights, universal values, global concepts, business and economy, availability of resources and so on.

Students can help by sending us:

* Comments and recommendations on ideas proposed so far and on research papers to be submitted; we want to hear your opinion and views.

* Positive and constructive actions in sustaining Earth. These are actions learned from the previous Global Dialogue or new ones. Participants from all sectors of life will describe and explain actions that they have performed in their own homes, communities, business places or in any other places on the planet. Depending on whether we find a sponsor to promote the Global Dialogue we hope to be able to present your videos, CDs or other productions on our website.

Students from all over the world are asked to send us an original design and definition of what they think the Global Community and Global Dialogue 2006 should encompass or would include or be like. Prizes will be given to the best projects. Prizes will be awarded for best designs. Prizes will be awarded during the Friday, August 18, 2006, Awards Ceremony.

Criteria for Student Submissions

Students of all levels (school, college, technical, university) are invited to participate in the Global Dialogue. They are asked to produce any creative work of their vision of what Global Dialogue 2006 can accomplish ~ in the fields of zoology, biology, on history, on geography, on social and political sciences, on agriculture, energy, earth sciences, communications, wilderness, pollution, on the water supplies of the world, poverty, employment, social justice, human rights, business and economy, availability of resources and so on. Read the file on ISSUES to obtain the complete listing of topics. Prizes will be presented at the Global Dialogue 2006 Friday, August 18, 2006 during the Awards Ceremony and the Chairman’s Address.

Student Sessions

Global Dialogue 2006 welcomes the participation of school, undergraduate and graduate students. Special arrangements for students include discounted registration fees, special housing blocks, sessions sponsored by the Global Dialogue 2006 Honors Program, and space at the meeting site for an informal Student Centre.

All sessions listed in the Call for Papers are open to submissions from students.

Student session organizers work under the same guidelines as Regular Session organizers and are subject to the submission criteria, deadlines, and program policies listed in the Call for Papers.

Section Sessions

These sessions include formal paper-reading sessions, refereed roundtable sessions, and informal roundtable sessions.

All Section program activities are subject to the submission criteria, deadlines, and program policies listed in the Call for Papers. All sessions will be one hour and 45 minutes in length, unless noted otherwise.

Re-organizing the Global Community website

Call for Papers: Global Dialogue 2006

Send your nomination letters for the ECO Awards

Who is eligible for the ECO award?

Although the Criteria to obtain the ECO Award varies according to the categories, the basic requirement is the same for all candidates: only Global Community citizens can be nominated.

To be considered eligible for an award it is necessary to be nominated in writing by a person competent to make such a nomination. Then the candidate must go througth the process of obtaining the award, the selection process.

Categories

The ECO Award is an international award given yearly for achievements in several categories.

In November 2004, there were 76 ECO Award recipients in different categories listed at http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/global06/listofrecipients.htm

This is the time to send your nomination letters by email at:

globalcommunity@telus.net
or
GlobalConstitution@telus.net

Back to top of page

Global Health Ministry

We are inviting professionals to submit an application to become the Global Health Minister of Global Community Earth Government. Just so you all know we dont pay anyone, and we dont pay expenses. We do volunteer work for humanity. We do 'soft activism' work. The Global Constitution shows us how to operate our organization. We follow the Global Law as shown in the Global Constitution. All those who do volunteer work for us must become familliar with it and become 'global community citizens'. You are required to read about the Criteria of the Global Community Citizenship. Read it at: http://www.globalcommunitywebnet.com/globalcommunity/GCcitizenship.htm Once you are sure you understand the Criteria, then you are required to live a life as per the Criteria. You do not need to let go the citizenship you already have. No! You can still be a citizen of any nation on Earth. But you are a better human being as you belong also to the Global Community, and you have now higher values to live a life, to sustain yourself and all life on the planet.

Once you have accepted the Criteria, you become a Global Citizen, and you can be a volunteer for us.

If you still want to do volunteer work for us please Participate in Global Dialogue 2006 (no costs) and fill up the form at http://www.globalcommunitywebnet.com/globalcommunity/registrationform.htm Reply by email.

Our Council of Ministers is shown here.

Name	Title	Date started	Photo and info
Germain Dufour	President Earth Executive Council Global Community Earth Government	August 22, 2000	info
Dr. Sue L.T. McGregor	Minister of Family and Human Development	August 22, 2000	info
James Mwami	Minister of Water Resources Protection	August 22, 2000	info

The Global Health Ministry is needed to reduce the threat of new and reemerging diseases and immune micro-organisms. SAR is certainly a new emerging global threat and must be managed before it becomes widespread. There are several factors indicating the need for new global changes in the area of health:

* larger populations of mal-nourished and undereducated people living in substandard housing, unhealthy environmental conditions and inadequate health services, and poor water supply and sanitation
* rapid increase in international air travel
* globalization of trade
* lowering of standards in the production, handling, and processing of food have heightened the risk of food-borne diseases
* environmental factors and activities such as deforestation, conflict, tourism and migration into remote habitats have increased exposure to disease

The Global Community is asking national governments to give their support for the network of collaborating laboratories managed by the World Health Organization (WHO). We are proposing to expand WHO's mandate to include:

*     a global surveillance system
*     an emergency section capable of responding to outbreaks of infectious disease anywhere in the world
*     a more efficient vaccines program
*     research into advanced-generations of antibiotics
*     help governments put in place policies to improve the management of medical and public health resources, and to monitor these policies. Tele-medicine and tele-health can bring the best medical and health knowledge to all areas of the world. Public-private partnerships have been shown to reduce disease and health costs in developing countries. More research are needed to understand the relationship among disease, ecology and genetics.
*     AIDS awareness programs have to become far more aggressive. AIDS is the leading cause of death in the sub-Saharan Africa and is now spreading rapidly in Central/Southern Asia and Eastern Europe. Local delivery of anti-retrovirus medicine to developing countries is very difficult.
*     bioterrorism is a threat just as important as a nuclear war and a section of this global ministry must be prepared to respond quickly and efficiently.
* more research is needed to understand and respond to infectious diseases. Immunization rates are declining in low-income and middle-income countries. There are more than 30 new and highly infectious diseases that have been identified, such as Ebola and AIDS, and there are no treatment, cure, or vaccine.
* more research is needed in 20 known strains of diseases such as tuberculosis (TB) and malaria which have developed resistance to antibiotics due to the widespread use and misuse of these drugs.
* more research is needed in old diseases such as cholera, plague, meningitis, diphtheria, dengue fever, hemorrhagic fever, and yellow fever as they have reappeared as public health threats after years of decline.

Germain Dufour
President
Global Community Earth Government

http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GlobalConstitution/

globalcommunity@telus.net

GlobalConstitution@telus.net

People from all Nations are required to sign and ratify the Global Constitution

Back to top of page

Participation from the Government of Canada and all Canadians

Back to top of page

ECO award in the 'Global Governments' category

I am very pleased to accept the ECO award in the 'Global Governments' category given to me by the Global Community.

The ECO award is given to me in recognition of:

1) my work in forming the Global Community Earth Government, and, along with Peoples of the Global Community and through Global Dialogues, developing the Global Governments Federation and the Global Constitution; and
2) actually conducting activist work to promote such Global Governments.

The award means a lot to my own personal life as it represents an enormous amount of work and activism.

The award tells governments that it is time to form the Global Governments Federation for the good of their communities. People trust the award recipients as knowing they will operate within basic principles, global ethics and rigid environmental standards.

Getting the ECO award is a way to reach a higher level of protection to life in the Global Community and help national governments integrate and balance:

a)    global life-support systems protection,
b)    global community participation, and

c)    economic decisions

into their operations and ways of doing things.

Obtaining the ECO award help all Peoples to be part of the solution to the challenges of globalization. In this way, the private sector in partnership with the civil society can help realize a vision allowing a:

a) global equitable and peaceful development, and
b) more stable and inclusive global economy.

I strongly advise all people of the world to apply to be a global citizen of the Global Community and help forming the Global Governments Federation.

For a person to have obtained the award means that the person has taken responsibility on behalf of society, and that the person pays attention to human and Earth rights, working conditions and is free of corruption in their ways of doing business and trade.

Tangible benefits of obtaining the award are expected in many areas of our social systems.:

a)    The peoples of all Nations, in creating an ever closer Earth Government among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values. Conscious of its spiritual and moral heritage, Earth Government is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity; it is based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the Global Community citizenship of Earth Government and by creating an era of freedom, security and justice.

b)    Earth Government contributes to the preservation and to the development of these common values while respecting the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of all Nations as well as the national identities of Member Nations and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels; it seeks to promote balanced and sustainable development and ensures free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, and the freedom of establishment. To this end, it is necessary to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the light of changes in society, social progress and scientific and technological developments by making those rights more visible in this Constitution.

c)    The Global Constitution reaffirms, with due regard for the powers and tasks of Earth Government and the principle of subsidiarity, the rights as they result, in particular, from the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to Member Nations, the Scale of Social Values, or Scale of Human and Earth Rights, adopted by Earth Government and by the Global Council of all Nations and the case law of the Earth Court of Justice of Earth Government and of the Global Court of Human and Earth Rights. Enjoyment of these rights entails responsibilities and duties with regard to other persons, to the human community and to future generations. Earth Government therefore recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out hereafter.

d)    We the Peoples of the Global Community are reaffirming faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and smalll. We the Peoples implies every individual on Earth. Earth management and good governance is now a priority and a duty of every responsible person on Earth. The Global Community has taken action by calling the Divine Will into our lives and following its guidance. Divine Will is now a part of the Soul of Humanity to be used for the higher purpose of good and Life's evolution. We will learn to serve humanity and radiate the Will of God to others. We will establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and we promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

There are two special people I want to thank:

Dr. Sue L.T. McGregor, Minister of Family and Human Development
James Mwami, Minister of Water Resources Protection

As Executive Members of Global Community Earth Government, their willingness in pursuing our quest for a sustainable humanity has been a great support and has given me strength.

I wish also to thank the group from Federation of Earth: Dr. T. P. Amerasinghe (Sri Lanka), Sir Dr. Reinhart Ruge (Mexico), Ms. Eugenia Almand (USA), and Dr. Glen T. Martin (USA).

It has been an amazing meeting in Mexico. I had the great honour of going to their Seminar on May 6, 7, and 8, 2005, in Tepotzlan, Mexico. Much about global problems and the Earth Constitution. Great support!

And lastly I want to thank Members of the Advisory Board to the Global Constitution:

James T. Ranney, Alanna Hartzok, Dr. Terence P. Amerasinghe, Lord Reinhart, Dr. Glen Martin, Eugenia Almand, Fernando Ortiz Monasterio, Jose Luis Gutierrez Lozano, Luan Perez Quijada, Carolina Latorre, Dr. Sue L.T. McGregor, Doug Everingham, Yellow Horn, Leslaw Michnowski, Md. Hasibur Rahman, and Rob Wheeler. Certainly the 'Board of great minds' to make a better world. They have kept me in focus throughout the entire process of developing the Global Constitution.

All these people along with all Participants

and Founding Menbers

have been involved in many ways in my success of winning the award. Thank you.

Germain Dufour
President
Global Community Earth Government

http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GlobalConstitution/

globalcommunity@telus.net

GlobalConstitution@telus.net

Back to top of page

Send email to gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright © 2004 Global Community WebNet Ltd.

Send email to gdufour@globalcommunitywebnet.com with questions or comments about this web site.

Copyright © 2004 Global Community WebNet Ltd.