Secrecy, security and sovereignty

The third annual meeting of the leaders of the United States, Mexico and Canada has just been held in Montebello, Quebec, and President Bush and the others say they are doing nothing inappropriate.

Maybe not, but we also don't think they spent much time talking about jelly beans, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada suggested. Harper pooh-poohed the concerns of Canadians that the Security and Prosperity Partnership started three years ago between the three nations is the beginning of the end of sovereignty.

"Is the sovereignty of Canada going to fall apart if we standardize the jelly bean?" Harper said. "You know, I don't think so."

Harper claimed that rules governing the contents of jelly beans are different in Canada and the United States, which may be so, but somehow we think the jelly bean issue could have been resolved without the high-level involvement of Bush, Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

It does appear plain that the three leaders are intent on creating a security perimeter that encompasses all three nations, developing a system of emergency response that would allow responders to cross national borders as part of a common strategy, and bringing down trade barriers.

It's not exactly a North American Union, at least not yet, but it's important enough that it deserves to have full transparency so that citizens of the three nations can determine exactly what is being done in their name.

Even if sovereignty is not at stake, it is evident that the Security and Prosperity Partnership is one more attempt to increase globalization of trade and create common links between economies. For this purpose, indeed, representatives of 30 multinational companies participated in the summit on behalf of what is known as the North American Competitiveness Council.

Members of Congress and private citizens have expressed their distrust of the process, which is at least partly the result of a book-length report published by the Council on Foreign Relations called "Building a North American Community." Opponents point to the president's insistence on amnesty for illegal immigrants as one example of how "international" thinking can be used to persuade nations to sacrifice elements of their own sovereignty for the "greater good."

Certainly, the tendency toward secrecy exhibited by the Security and Prosperity Partnership is worrisome at best, partly because whenever the dark veil of secrecy is penetrated it brings to light some new concern.

The government watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained notes from Pentagon attendees of the last summit in September 2006, and discovered that one person had described a plan to promote the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership as "evolution by stealth."

Considering how many people already are claiming that this partnership is nothing less than an end run around the Constitution, such a reference is certainly unsettling. Americans must demand that if the Security and Prosperity Partnership goes forward, it is done not by stealth, but in the broad daylight and with their full involvement.