Global Government of North America
[ GCEG Global Community Earth Government ] [ Earth Government Global Law Earth Government Global Law ] [ The Global Constitution The Global Constitution ] [ Federation Advisory Board Global Constitution Advisory Board ] [ Activities of the Global Community Activities of the Global Community ] [ Member Nations Member Nation Constitutions, Statutes and Related Legislative Information ]
[ Portal of the Global Community of North America Portal of the Global Community of North America ] [ Recommendations to humanityRecommendations to humanity ] [ GGNA Global Government of North America (GGNA) ] [ GGNA schematic GGNA organizational schematic ] [ GCEG schematicGlobal Community Earth Government (GCEG)organizational schematic ] [ GCNA Portal of the Global Community of North America ] [ GGs Global Governments ] [ Global Constitution The Global Constitution ] [ Welcome to the GGNA Welcome to the Global Government of North America (GGNA) ] [ GCEG historyHistory of the Global Community Earth Government (GCEG) ] [ Global Citizens Act  Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and  Accountability Act ] [ Global Law  Global Law: legislation, Statutes, Codes and Bills ] [ Global Environment Ministry  Global Environment Ministry ] [ Global ministries  Perhaps now  we all see the wisdom to create global ministries in several aspects of our global life.  ] [ Council of Global Ministers Council of Global Ministers ] [ Global Politics & Justice NewsGlobal Politics and Global Justice News ] [ Global Community Web Net Global Community Web Net scripted ] [ Global Dialogue 2007 scriptedGlobal  Dialogue 2007 scripted ] [ Global Dialogue 2007 not scriptedGlobal  Dialogue 2007 not scripted ] [ Agency of Global PoliceAgency of Global Police ] [ Global Protection Agency (GPA) Global Protection Agency ] [ Portal of the Global Civilization Portal of the Global Civilization ] [ Global Data Measurement and Assessment Global Data Measurement and Assessment aspects and issues ] [  Global Justice for all life Global Justice for all life  ] [ Portal of the Global Community Portal of the Global Community  ] [ Global Dialogue 2008 Global Dialogue 2008  ] [ Who owns the Earth? Series of articles concerning the issues of Who owns the Earth?   ] [ Global Community Information Media (GIM) Global Community Information Media (GIM)  ] [ Proceedings of the Global Dialogue Proceedings of the Global Dialogue  ] [ Participate in roundtables on Who owns the Earth ?Participate in roundtables on Who owns the Earth ] [ Participate in Group Discussion by email on Who owns the Earth ? Participate in  Group Discussion by email  on Who owns the Earth ] [ Canada sovereignty of Nunavut, Northwest Passage, blood resources Canada sovereignty of Nunavut, Northwest Passage, blood resources ] [ Global referendumVote now Global referendum. Vote now ] [ Global Community Peace Movement website Global Community Peace Movement website ] [  Scale of Global Rights  Scale of Global Rights  ] [  GIM daily proclamations GIM daily proclamations  ] [  Global Dialogue 2009   Global Dialogue 2009  ] [  Federation of Global Governments Head Quarters (HQ)  Federation of Global Governments Head Quarters (HQ)   ] [  Global Movement to Help essential services  Global Movement to Help essential services  ] [  Global Justice Network  Global Justice Network   ] [  Global Protection Agency (GPA)  Global Protection Agency (GPA)  ] [  Global Rights year one  Global Rights year one ] [  Cultural Appreciation Day celebration August 22  Cultural Appreciation Day celebration August 22  ] [  Portal of the Global Community 2009 Portal of the Global Community 2009 ]

Federation Africa European Global Government South    America Central  America and the Caribbean Global Government of Asia Global Government of Oceania Global Government of the Middle East Global Government of  South-East Asia
Eugenia Almand:   Global Government of North America Adviser Federation and Global Constitution Advisory Board

The GGNA is for all Citizens of the North American Community and others
by Germain Dufour
Adviser, Global Government of North America (GGNA)
July 7, 2005

As a replacement to the United Nations, we have formed Global Community Earth Government (GCEG) with 9 or more Global Governments (GGs) and an enforceable, non-military democratic Global Constitution for all. Governing bodies consist of three chambers making the Global Parliament:

1.    House of Elected Representatives
2.    House of Advisers, and
3.    Global Governments Federation

The power of GCEG was de-centralized to give each GG a better chance to find the right solutions to global issues. It can act faster and be more effective and efficient in the context of the Global Community, this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities within each Nation.The Global Community becomes thus more fluid and dynamic. A global symbiotical relationship is created between Nations and GCEG for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group willing Member Nations from different parts of the world. A typical example is the Global Government of North America (GGNA).

Member Nations of these global governments have not yet been selected. Through the process of a referendum in a Member Nation, it is the people of the Member Nation who will select the Global Government they wish to belong to. During a Global Assembly Meeting of the Earth Government, Global Parliament will accept or reject membership of a Nation in a specific Global Government.

As we have shown in the Global Constitution, the Global Community is defined as being all that exits or occurs at any location at any time between the Ozone layer above and the core of the planet below. This is an important concept and particularly useful in the context of the Global Governments Federation. A community is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. One could think of a typical community of a million people that does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. It can be a million people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where I live and contained by a border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same. The Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities.

A global symbiotical relationship between two or more nations, or between two or more global communities, can have trade as the major aspect of the relationship or it can have as many other aspects as agreed by the people involved. The fundamental criteria is that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development.

This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group Member Nations from different parts of the world. For example, the Global Government of North America can be made of willing Member Nations such as Canada, the United States, Mexico, Great britain, the Territories, and include the North Pole region.

Table of Contents

a.    Human and Earth Rights within the GGNA   
b.    GGNA proposals   
c.    Canada wants a veto power   
d.    GGNA principles   

Global Government of North America: Member Nations, Territories and the Pole Region

Human and Earth Rights within the GGNA

Article 103:    Scale of Human and Earth Rights Human and Earth Rights discussion in Newsletter Scale of Human and Earth Rights in the Global Constitution
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

Our investigation has shown that in the past very little importance was ever given to Sections 1,2,3, and 4 of the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. And it is made clear how urgent it is to replace both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Charters from all nations by the Scale of Human and Earth 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, and 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.

Germain Dufour
Global Community Earth Government
Global Community Earth Government


Back to top of page

Send mail to with questions or comments about the Global Constitution. Your mail
Send comments about website to webmaster at Webmaster

Copyright © 2005 Global Community WebNet Ltd.Global Community WebNet Ltd