From Raw Story:

Prolific Mexican politician and intellectual Jorge Castañeda believes that a greater North American community — a “North American Union” — with economies tied together under a European Union-style system, complete with open borders and a unified currency, is the wave of the future.

In a new interview with Web site BigThink.com, Castañeda, Mexico’s foreign minister from 2000-2003 and a global distinguished professor of politics at New York University, said that with nearly 11 percent of Mexicans living in the United States, he has stopped seeing his nation as a Latin American country.

“Well, my sense is that we’re moving closer and closer to forms of economic integration with the United States and Canada and conceivably Central America and Caribbean could become part of that in the coming years,” he said. “I don’t see Mexico as a Latin American country. Too much of trade, investment, tourism, immigration, remittances, absolutely everything is concentrated exclusively with the United States. So, Mexico has to be part of a North American community, a North American union, which at some point probably should include some type of monetary union along European lines with a free flow of labor, with energy being on the table, etc.”

Often demonized as some type of “conspiracy theory” in mainstream American press, the so-called North American Union proposals have actually existed for some time. In May of 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations released a document entitled “Building a North American Community” in which it calls for an EU-like integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico.

While the document does not specifically call for the ceding of sovereignty between the three nations — as some vocal opponents of the idea have suggested — it does recommend the formation of a North American Advisory Council and a multinational inter-parliamentary group to facilitate mutual cooperation. Though the group originally set out to achieve this goal by 2010, few in mainstream America are even aware of it today.

The CFR’s full proposal is available online. [PDF link]

“Economic and social citizenship in North America 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,” wrote CFR member Carlos Heredia. “To the extent that citizens of the three partner countries see that North American integration brings concrete benefits, a new constituency will be galvanized to support these efforts in the years to come.”

“How far away are we from that?” Castañeda asked, rhetorically. “Quite far, but so did it seem back in Europe in the 1950’s and very little time later they came around and understood that that was their future lay. My sense is that the Mexican society is voting with its feet. We have a higher share of Mexicans living in the United States than we have ever had in our history. One out of every nine Mexicans, Mexican citizens, people born in Mexico, live in the United States today.”

In recent weeks, Castañeda also appeared on CNN’s Amanpour for a debate about the drug war. He explained that in his view, marijuana should be legalized in order to take away the drug cartels’ primary revenue source. However, “we can’t do it in Mexico if the U.S. doesn’t do it at the same time,” he said.

Speaking to BigThink, he carried a similar message.

“Having recklessly plunged the country into [the drug war] now, I think what Calderón and the United States should do is to sort of sit back for a second, think this through, see what they really want to achieve, what is achievable and what should be done that’s new,” he said. “For example, there are more and more states in the US that are moving towards decriminalization at least of marijuana. Mexico is still a very important producer of marijuana. Some people say that up to 60 percent of the profits of Mexico’s cartels come from marijuana. Well, if the United States or California’s de facto legalizing it through medical marijuana, what sense does it make for Mexicans to die to stop marijuana from entering the US when once it enters it can be sold legally at over 1,000 dispensaries in Los Angeles, more than the number of public schools there are in Los Angeles. That’s certainly one thing that we can do.”

Return to Main

President Barack Obama joined his Canadian and Mexican counterparts as they completed a summit meeting in Mexico on Monday. Issues on the agenda included trade, the H1N1 flu pandemic and the battle against illegal drugs.

Shannon ONeil, a fellow in Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the summit and the biggest challenges ahead for the US-Mexico relationship.

One other item of note, the President noted that comprehensive immigration reform will have to wait until 2010. More on this from the Los Angeles Times:

Locked in a healthcare debate that is claiming much of his energy, President Obama acknowledged today that a push to overhaul the U.S. immigration system will have to wait until 2010 and even then will prove a major political test.

Obama suggested that it would be too ambitious to aim for an immigration bill that addresses such concerns as illegal immigration before the end of the year, at a time when he will be confronting “a pretty big stack of bills.”

Speaking at the end of a two-day summit meeting here of North American leaders, Obama said his administration was meeting with lawmakers in an effort to come up with an immigration plan that would enjoy bipartisan support. “When we come back next year . . . we should be in a position to start acting.”

As a candidate, Obama had said in July 2008 that he would make immigration “a top priority in my first year as president.” But the economic crisis and realities of governing have forced him to re-examine how best to roll out his agenda.

Opponents of the existing immigration structure say they are dismayed by the latest timetable.

Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an advocacy group, said, “I think we’d be smarter to move on it this year.

“There’s a real hunger on the part of the American public to make sure immigrants are legal, are working towards citizenship, are paying their taxes and not being used by bad-actor employers to undercut honest employers.”

Obama said he was confident he would ultimately prevail in providing a road to citizenship for undocumented immigrants living in the United States. But previewing the struggle expected to get the bill passed, he said illegal immigration foes would put up stout resistance.

The president is encountering enormous difficulties in passing a healthcare overhaul — an issue that evokes far less an emotional response than illegal immigration.

“Now, am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done?” said Obama, speaking on a stage alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “No.”

“This is going to be difficult; it’s going to require bipartisan cooperation. There are going to be demagogues out there who try to suggest that any form of pathway for legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable.”

He added: “But ultimately, I think the American people want fairness.”

Return to Main

The above video is a trailer to a new documentary about Percy Schmeiser, a farmer from Bruno — a small town about 40 miles east of Regina in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. In May of 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada in a narrow 5-4 decision ruled that the Saskatchewan farmer had violated a patent that Monsanto Canada Inc. held on genes of genetically engineered canola seeds.

At the centre of the litigation was a gene that Monsanto invented, patented and introduced into canola. Created in 1996 and known as Roundup Ready, it makes canola plants resistant to a common weed-control herbicide that the company markets under the name of Roundup. Its progeny are equally resistant.

The litigation dates to 1997, when Monsanto found its genetically engineered canola plant growing on Mr. Schmeiser’s farm. Mr. Schmeiser contended that since a plant is a higher life form and cannot be patented, he had done nothing wrong. Monsanto did not claim protection for the genetically modified plant itself, but rather for the genes and the modified cells it is composed of.

Mr. Schmeiser, already in his mid-70s, cast himself as a farmer of the old school who habitually used seeds from previous crops to plant new canola. No fan of chemical herbicides, Mr. Schmeiser used Roundup sparingly in 1997 to eliminate weeds around some power poles and ditches.

He has steadfastly insisted that the seed somehow blew onto his fields from passing trucks or from neighbouring farms, which had paid Monsanto Canada Inc. the licensing fee of $15 an acre to use it.

He said he was astonished to discover that a great deal of the canola in those areas survived his spraying, suggesting that had somehow acquired a resistance to the herbicide. He used portions of the seed from those areas for his crop the following year.

With the aid of environmentalists, he quickly acquired the image of a little guy taking on a greedy corporate conglomerate. Although Monsanto disputed Mr. Schmeiser’s version of events, the company’s main contention was simply that Mr. Schmeiser reaped and reused the herbicide-resistant seed without authorization.

Approximately 20,000 farmers now plant Roundup Ready canola, representing 40% of the Canadian canola crop. Though Monsanto thinks of itself as an agri-business, it is really more a chemical industry giant. Their goal is to create seeds that will increasingly withstand their herbicides. Monsanto, which gave us the deadly Agent Orange and the common household toxic weed killer Roundup, is not alone in its quest to manipulate, or to control the world’s natural order. Germany’s chemical giant Bayer, well known for its popular and effective Bayer aspirin, and for Aleve and Alka-Seltzer, was the first to introduce heroin as well as mustard gas, and produces a series of neonicotinoids — insecticides that attack the central nervous systems of insects, such as bees. Other mega-corporations dealing in both pharmaceuticals and pesticides, to name a few, are Merck, DuPont, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta — but Monsanto has been around for more than a century, produces 90-percent of genetically modified seed.

Mr. Schmeiser lost the first round on March 29, 2001. Mr. Justice Andrew MacKay of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Mr. Schmeiser “knew or ought to have known” his 1998 seed was resistant to Roundup. He said it was more likely that he planted the seed himself than that he came by it innocently.

Rather than roll over, Percy sued Monsanto for contaminating his field and won an out of court settlement in March of 2008. Monsanto was ordered to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser’s fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Mr. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants. And with no gag order, Mr. Schmeiser continues to let other farmers know his story through his eponymous website, Percy Schmeiser.

Here’s another interview of Percy Schmeiser, a giant in the fight against over-reaching corporate power.

You can view the full David versus Monsanto documentary on Journeyman Pictures for a modest fee. I urge you to support the work of independent filmmakers and the London-based Journeyman Pictures is the world’s leading archive of independent films.

Learn more about farmers protecting the sustainability of farming at Network of Concerned Farmers.

Return to Main

Inside Story discusses the challenges facing NATO’S new Secretary General, former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who today made a surprise visit to Afghanistan. More on this story from the Los Angeles Times.

The new head of NATO paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Wednesday to reinforce his message that the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda remains the alliance’s top priority.

But whether he can get the nations he represents to line up behind him and commit resources to the same agenda is looking increasingly doubtful as the body count, both military and civilian, continues to climb.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen landed in Kabul, the Afghan capital, for meetings with military leaders, diplomats and candidates in Afghanistan’s upcoming presidential election. It’s the former Danish prime minister’s first trip as secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a post he assumed Monday.

His choice of Afghanistan for his maiden voyage was clearly meant to put an exclamation point on Rasmussen’s declaration that the conflict there is NATO’s most important operation, a must-win if the alliance is to remain relevant to global security.

“That starts with succeeding in Afghanistan,” Rasmussen told reporters after formally taking office.

NATO must “help prevent Afghanistan from becoming again the Grand Central Station of international terrorism,” he said, adding: “The moral argument is also powerful: Anyone who believes in basic human rights, including women’s rights, should support this mission.”

Such support, though, is in dwindling supply throughout much of Europe.

(more…)

People&Power looks into an Argentine community’s crusade against a Canadian mining giant intent on mining their mountain for gold, with devastating environmental impact.

Here’s more background from Mining Watch:

In the Argentine province of La Rioja, an astonishing series of events have lead to the ouster of an allegedly corrupt pro-mining provincial governor and the apparent withdrawal of gold mining giant Barrick Gold from operations on the Famatina range. Who was responsible for these events? A small group of dedicated neighbors who are fighting tooth and nail to save their mountain range from open-pit mining exploitation.

On March 13, 2006, the capital city of La Rioja was rocked by turmoil and disturbances marking the sudden ouster of governor Ángel Maza. His ouster was based on charges of corruption arising from his relations with Barrick Gold, and was marked by violence, hired thugs and a systematic burning and destruction of evidence linking the gold mining giant to the now-deposed governor. The new interim governor has pledged to outlaw open-pit metals mining using cyanide and set a date for a public referendum on the issue. Barrick Gold announced the dismantling of their mining camp, and withdrawal from exploratory activities in the Famatina range.

As of this moment (March 21, 2007), activists are still positioned in Peñas Negras 5,400 feet up on Mt. Famatina, entering the third week of a blockade of the road winding up Famatina to the Barrick Gold encampment. They are permitting Barrick employees and machinery to leave, but not to enter. And they vow to not abandon their vigil until Barrick Gold is gone for good, and a provincial law is in effect prohibiting open-pit mining on their beloved mountain.

What happened in La Rioja? This brief description of the events is based on observation, history and a very nice article published by the Argentine journal La Vaca. By analyzing what took place in La Rioja, we can perhaps hone our strategies in other locations where the metals mining giants may appear to have a firm foothold – but in the face of popular movements, perhaps their power isn’t as strong as they would like us to believe.

(more…)

About 3100 workers at Vale Inco’s nickel mining and refining operations in Sudbury, Ontario went on strike on July 13, 2009 after overwhelmingly rejecting a final offer from the company. Vale Inco (formerly CVRD Inco) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Brazilian mining company Vale. It is Vale’s nickel mining and metals division. Vale has operations in Mongolia, Indonesia, China, Peru, Chile, Angola and Brazil. Vale is now a private company but until 1997, it was a state-owned enterprise.

More from the New York Times:

The strike follows the first set of labor negotiations between the United Steelworkers of America and Vale since it acquired Inco in 2007 after a prolonged series of mining deals involving the company. Spokesmen for both the company and the union agreed that the two sides remained far apart.

The walkout may soon be followed by a second strike at Vale Inco’s mine in Voisey’s Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador. Ninety-nine percent of unionized workers there also rejected the company’s proposal but, by law, cannot strike until the end of July.

The current strike, which also includes a refinery in Port Colborne, Ontario, will have no immediate effect on Vale Inco’s production. Low demand for nickel, which is a critical ingredient in stainless steel, means that Sudbury is already in the midst of an eight-week shutdown. That closure followed a scheduled monthlong closing in May for maintenance.

Bob Gallagher, a spokesman for the Canadian branch of the Steelworkers, said the main issue was the future of a bonus payment tied to the market price of nickel. While that bonus currently has no value, it can increase workers’ annual pay by thousands of dollars during periods of high prices.

The company is also proposing changes in pension benefits for future employees.

Some analysts have suggested that a prolonged shutdown caused by a strike could benefit Vale Inco by raising nickel prices.

But Cory McPhee, a Toronto-based spokesman for the company, said that it did not welcome the walkout.

“We didn’t want the strike,” he said. “But the fact the union voted to reject our offer still doesn’t change our fundamental business imperative.”

Return to Main

Five countries with Arctic coastlines have been lobbying for rights to what they believe is a wealth of natural resources.

Under the Law of the Sea, they can explore and use resources up to 200 nautical miles from their coast but no country’s continental shelf extends to the North Pole.

Alan Fisher reports from the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen.

Return to Main

Calling the weekend in Trinidad the “Anti-American at the Summit of the Americas”, the apoplectic American right has come unhinged because the President did the unthinkable and actually had a conversation with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. Even worse, they shook hands. ¡Diós mio!

Well, well, well, I must say that for the first time in my life I am truly awed by change in the United States and thus it doesn’t surprise me that the American right is beside itself. If I am happy, they must be truly miserable. Let them rot in their misery, the rest of us deserve better than the failed neo-liberalism that they continue to proffer in their orgy of self-enrichment. President Obama’s pledge to “seek an equal partnership” where  there is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations is being greeted across the continent as a sign that this is really the historic change that Latin America has been seeking with the United States. As Time’s Tim Padgett notes:

If it’s genuine, it’s hard to overestimate how important that promise is to Latin Americans, who’ve experienced a lot more heavy-handed interventionism and condescending disregard than they have partnership from either Republicans or Democrats in Washington. It not only heartened Latin leaders in Trinidad, it disarmed them.

(more…)

Return to Main

Tomorrow marks the 60th anniversary of NATO — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — was born with the signing of an agreement in Washington, D.C. As the war in Afghanistan intensifies, the leaders of NATO gathered today for an anniversary summit in Strasbourg, France, and across the border in the German town of Kehl.

Kimberly Marten, chair of the political science department at Barnard College, Columbia University, joins Martin Savidge to discuss NATOs 60th anniversary and the roles of American and other forces in the expanding war in Afghanistan.

Return to Main