Globalist think tank seeks “North American Consciousness”

Panelists see America as the “greatest obstacle” to “North American Integration”

Old-thinker news | Aug 4, 2007

By Daniel Taylor

“This is how we will create a North American consciousness and a true North American Community. It will be forged in the heat of conflict, not through a rational discussion, as painful as that may be. It really cannot happen any other way.” – Bruce Stokes, CFR Senior Fellow, speaking at the “Toward a North American Community?” conference, June 11, 2002

In reading a little noticed June 11, 2002 document (link) detailing a conference held by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, shocking revelations are made regarding the elite’s plans to create a North American Union between Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America.

The “Toward a North American Community?” conference focused on the social and ideological aspects of the creation of a “North American Community”, and prescribes ways to deal with nationalism and a belief in the sovereignty of ones own country; both obstacles to their plans. A “North American Consciousness” – an outlook absent of traditional beliefs in sovereignty, replaced by an international view favorable to globalism – is needed, the panelists conclude, that would support the “… economic, political, and social integration…” of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

The title “Toward a North American Community” may sound familiar to some. This was the title that Robert Pastor, one of the main proponents of a North American Community, gave to his book that was published just a year before the Woodrow Wilson conference.

The “Toward a North American Community?” conference is described in the document,

“This conference was a departure from many recent events on North America. Instead of looking exclusively at trade and investment, the panelists were asked to focus on relationships in North America and to examine identity, sovereignty, and political practices in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Further economic, political, and social integration will depend on how citizens of the three countries define their national identities and the degree to which they are willing to cede some of their countries’ sovereignty to a larger entity.”

The document continues, reiterating the same theme from above,

“The first panel of the conference brought together scholars from the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Panelists looked at American, Mexican, and Canadian attitudes on identity and sovereignty in the context of North America. Trade, political integration, and the nature of agreements among the three countries will depend largely on the way people in these countries define their interests, and the extent to which they feel there is something to be gained from a North American Community.”

Presentations were given by representatives from Mexico, Canada, and the United States respectively. The task of each was to present the political and social atmosphere of each country with respect to “North American integration.” Stephanie R. Golob of Baruch College and member of the Council on Foreign Relations represented the United States. Alejandro Moreno, director of research for Reforma, and professor at Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México represented Mexico. Laura Macdonald of Carleton University represented Canada.

Stephanie Golob expressed concerns that negative American reactions to NAFTA remain a major obstacle to North American integration.

“…Golob indicated that despite this perception that the United States is driving integration, related concerns in the United States about popular sovereignty and national integrity drove the highly emotional NAFTA debate back in 1993, and continue to form a key obstacle to North American Community.”

Because of this, Golob states that North American integration will have to come “…from the top down.” Golob’s analysis concluded that, “Many bottom-up linkages such as migration and the spread of the Spanish language demonstrate community among the three countries.”

Another recommendation given by Golob is that,

“…the President and his inner circle could fuel its development from the top down by demonstrating to Congress and the media that the expansion of North American integration is in the national interest.”

It appears that the President has not followed this strategy just yet, as secrecy still surrounds NAU plans. Outright denial of plans for a North American Union have come from the White House press secretary, Tony Snow. He was asked by World Net Daily about the Security and Prosperity Partnership and the progress towards a North American Union. Snow flatly denied any involvement.

As World Net Daily reports,

“WND asked Snow about the criticism, stating, ‘As WorldNetDaily’s lead story pointed out yesterday, critics are expressing concerns about the president’s cooperative efforts with Mexico and Canada regarding the Security and Prosperity Partnership. And my question: Will the president categorically deny any interest in building a European Union-style superstate in North America?'”

Responded Snow: “Of course, no. We’re not interested. There is not going to be an EU in the U.S.”

The document elaborates on Golob’s proposal stating that her research showed that forming a “North American identity” from a “foreign policy perspective” may aid in the shaping of public opinion. According to Golob, redefining the word “we” would also help in the formation of a North American identity.

“Foreign policy, she asserted, provides three things for a nation’s citizens: sovereignty, security, and identity.
Sovereignty dictates that the state’s citizens and government (“we”) decide policy, identity defines “who we are” as a nation, and security protects a nation’s sovereignty and identity. Governments must convince citizens that the regional project is consistent with these three values by expanding the definition of the “we.”’

The document continues, describing Golob’s findings on America’s stance with regards to a North American Community.

“Golob suggested that the United States, ironically, may prove the greatest obstacle to this process.”

Golob is correct in viewing America as an obstacle to a North American Union. While there remains a large section of the population that is oblivious of its existence, there is an aware and motivated group of Americans that is. Lou Dobbs, who has been the only prominent mainstream media figure to raise awareness of the North American Union, conducted a poll in early 2007 asking viewers if they would support legislation to prohibit the creation of a North American Union. 82% of respondents stated that “Yes” they would support efforts to stop the NAU.

Golob’s proposal goes further, suggesting that North American integration should be framed in a “non-threatening” manner by binding in the public’s mind the protection of U.S. industries and North American integration. Also discussed is the possibility of creating the false perception that the people are demanding integration.

“She suggested, however, that future decisions on greater integration would most likely come about via “integration through protectionism,” where agreements to integrate the three countries further are coupled with measures that protect specific U.S. industries. This would be an incremental approach to integration in which North American identity is deepened in sectors already integrating and is framed as non-threatening to those sectors which see themselves outside of regional flows. This approach would be driven by Congress and require the building of constituencies so that the issue could be framed as a “winner at the polls.””

The document also contains a transcript of a speech that Bruce Stokes gave at the conference. Stokes is a Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, commentator for National Public Radio, and writer for the National Journal.

Stokes states that,

“…we can agree that people are not at the point of believing in a North American Community yet. They still think and act as three separate entities. But they engage in their daily lives in new and different ways in issues that are really North American issues. Our challenge, as people that view the North American Community, is that we need to find issues that people are engaged in—whether they are trivial or dangerously provocative— and use them to move toward a broader North American consciousness.”

The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, focused on one such provocative issue in his article “State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era.” Among other issues, Haass states that climate change, or global warming, should give an incentive to cede sovereignty “…to world bodies…” He states that, “Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves…”

Stokes concludes his speech by saying that,

“This is how we will create a North American consciousness and a true North American Community. It will be forged in the heat of conflict, not through a rational discussion, as painful as that may be. It really cannot happen any other way.”

The American people, as well as our neighbors to the north and south, have been totally alienated as the North American Union marches forward. The “Toward a North American Community?” conference panelists do want to include you in the integration process – but apparently only to manipulate you. A casual observation of the actions of the individuals and organizations involved in the creation of the North American Union seems to show that the predominant strategy in recent years has been to shun the public. This chosen path of secrecy may be in response to the findings of the Woodrow Wilson conference that “…people are not at the point of believing in a North American Community yet.” In the event the NAU becomes much more open to the public – perhaps due to the exposure of the plans thanks to individuals like Jerome R. Corsi, Dr. Daneen G. Peterson and others – we may in fact see the strategies outlined during this 2002 conference put to use.

More important information:

Globalist organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission have a structure that serves to maximize their influence and effectiveness. Members in the Corporate, Academic, and Political realms work towards a common goal. As Patrick Wood of the August Review writes,

“The global elite march in three essential columns: Corporate, Political and Academic. For the sake of clarity, these names will be used herein to refer to these three groups.

In general, the goals for globalism are created by Corporate. Academic then provides studies and white papers that justify Corporate’s goals. Political sells Academic’s arguments to the public and if necessary, changes laws to accommodate and facilitate Corporate in getting what it wants.”

While Robert Pastor has been given the majority of media attention, other individuals in the Academic realm from across the country have written papers regarding North American integration.