Climbing the Value Chain
An Ascent Interrupted
A Revolution in the Making
Globalization of government means giving up sovereignty and transferring it to an international authority. In 2006, Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote the article below titled, “State Sovereignty Must Be Altered in a Globalized Era.“
For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states — has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.
The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.
As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organization (WTO) because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which ran through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.
All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows — within and across borders — of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.
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, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the US’ preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.
Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue — correctly — that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.
Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.
The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.
Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.
The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.
The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another.
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of ‘The Opportunity: America’s Moment to Alter History’s Course’
He also wrote another article titled, ‘The Age of Nonpolarity.‘
Border Environment Cooperation Agreement, Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), Community Adjustment and Investment Program (CAIP), Global financial, Globalization, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Monetary Fund, Mexico, NAD-Bank, North American Development Bank, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), North American Integration and Development Center (NAU), North American Union, Secretary of the Treasury
Many Americans are completely unaware of the North American Development Bank (NADB), how they operate, who benefits, and how they’re using taxpayers hard earned cash.
The NADB is what oversees the North American Union (NAU) infrastructure expansion deep into Mexico. It started out by convincing Americans living along the US/Mex border that the purpose was to enhance living conditions along the border, ie – waste water treatment facilities and modern infrastructure.
Immediately after 9/11 the NADB rushed through a host of projects aimed at expanding more than 100 miles into Mexico, at US taxpayer expense. More than $2 billion taxpayer dollars has been spent so far.
Are you beginning to see why the drug trafficking, child prostitution, killing and kidnapping has increased so dramatically on our southern border? These NADB projects are a major reason for the escalation in violence between the Mexican police and (U.S.Fast and Furious) drug dealers.
The North American Development Bank was created by President Bill Clinton in order to “assist development along the Mexican border and show sympathy with the concerns of Hispanic Representatives.” The NADB and its sister institution, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), were created under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to address “environmental issues” in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
The two institutions initiated operations under the November 1993 Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Border Environment Cooperation Commission(BECC) and a North American Development Bank (the “Charter”).
NADB was established in San Antonio, Texas, and began operations on November 10, 1994, with the initial capital subscriptions of the U.S. and Mexican governments.
In June 2000, the NADB Board of Directors initiated discussions on expanding the Bank’s financing activities to “more effectively serve border needs.” These discussions gave rise to a broad set of reform initiatives, some of which required changes to the original NADB-BECC Charter. Following passage of the necessary U.S. and Mexican legislation, an amended Charter went into force on August 6, 2004.
North American Development Bank is also known as NAD-BANK.
(a) Acceptance of membership
(b) Subscription of stock
(1) Subscription authority
(A) In general
The Secretary of the Treasury may subscribe on behalf of the United States up to 150,000 shares of the capital stock of the Bank.
(B) Effectiveness of subscription
Except as provided in paragraph (3), any such subscription shall be effective only to such extent or in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriations Acts.
(2) Limitations on authorization of appropriations
For payment by the Secretary of the Treasury of the subscription of the United States for shares described in paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000,000 ($225,000,000 of which may be used for paid-in capital and $1,275,000,000 of which may be used for callable capital) without fiscal year limitation.
(3) Funding; limitation on callable capital subscriptions
For fiscal year 1995, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay to the Bank out of any sums in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated the sum of $56,250,000 for the paid-in portion of the United States share of the capital stock of the Bank, 10 percent of which may be transferred by the Bank to the President pursuant to section 290m–2 of this title to pay for the cost of direct and “guaranteed Federal loans.”
(B) Limitation on callable capital subscriptions
For fiscal year 1995, the Secretary of the Treasury shall subscribe to the callable capital portion of the United States share of the capital stock of the Bank in an amount not to exceed $318,750,000.
(4) Disposition of net income distributed by the facility
Any payment made to the United States by the Bank as a distribution of net income shall be covered into the Treasury as a miscellaneous receipt.
(c) Compensation of Board members
No person shall be entitled to receive any salary or other compensation from the Bank or the United States for services as a Board member.
The provisions of section 4 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act [22 U.S.C. – FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE – 286b] shall apply with respect to the Bank to the same extent as with respect to the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund.
Unless authorized by law, neither the President nor any person or agency shall, on behalf of the United States—
(1) subscribe to additional shares of stock of the Bank;
(2) vote for or agree to any amendment of the Cooperation Agreement which increases the obligations of the United States, or which changes the purpose or functions of the Bank; or
(3) make a loan or provide other financing to the Bank.
(f) Federal Reserve banks as depositories
Any Federal Reserve bank that is requested to do so by the Bank shall act as its depository or as its fiscal agent, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall supervise and direct the carrying out of these functions by the Federal Reserve banks.
(g) Jurisdiction of United States courts and enforcement of arbitral awards
For the purpose of any civil action which may be brought within the United States, its territories or possessions, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, by or against the Bank in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement, including an action brought to enforce an arbitral award against the Bank, the Bank shall be deemed to be an inhabitant of the Federal judicial district in which its principal office within the United States or its agency appointed for the purpose of accepting service or notice of service is located, and any such action to which the Bank shall be a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States, and the district courts of the United States, including the courts enumerated in section 460 of title 28, shall have original jurisdiction of any such action. ( 26 U.S. Code § 6330 – Notice and opportunity for hearing).
When the Bank is a defendant in any action in a State court, it may at any time before trial remove the action into the appropriate district court of the United States by following the procedure for removal provided in section 1446 of title 28.
(h) Exemption from securities laws for certain securities issued by Bank; reports required
(2) Exemption from securities laws for certain securities issued by the Bank; reports required
Any securities issued by the Bank (including any guarantee by the Bank, whether or not limited in scope) in connection with the raising of funds for inclusion in the Bank’s capital resources as defined in Section 4 of Article II of Chapter II of the Cooperation Agreement, and any securities guaranteed by the Bank as to both the principal and interest to which the commitment in Section 3(d) of Article II of Chapter II of the Cooperation Agreement is expressly applicable, shall be deemed to be exempted securities within the meaning of section 77c (a)(2) of title 15, and section 78c (a)(12) of title 15. The Bank shall file with the Securities and Exchange Commission such annual and other reports with regard to such securities as the Commission shall determine to be appropriate in view of the special character of the Bank and its operations and necessary in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
(3) Authority of Securities and Exchange Commission to suspend exemption; reports to the Congress
The Securities and Exchange Commission, acting in consultation with the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems, is authorized to suspend the provisions of paragraph (2) at any time as to any or all securities issued or guaranteed by the Bank during the period of such suspension. The Commission shall include in its annual reports to Congress such information as it shall deem advisable with regard to the operations and effect of this subsection and in connection therewith shall include any views submitted for such purpose by any association of dealers registered with the Commission.
North American Development Bank
North American Free Trade Agreement
North American Industry Classification System
North American Standard Inspection [Transportation]
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
Agenda 21, Canada, CANAMEX Corridor, CANAMEX/NAFTA, European Union, Globalization, Mexico, NAFTA, NAFTA superhighway, North American Union, Ron Paul, Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, Trilateral Commission, United States, Wikileaks, World Trade Organization (WTO)
“The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union.An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the document said. “The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative … is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold.”
This was the post-debate discussion on Nov 28, 2007 just after the CNN youtube republican debate. Jeffrey Toobin is trying to smear Ron Paul by saying that the NAFTA superhighway is the figment of Ron Paul’s imagination. The conversation started as a discussion about Mike Huckabee’s suggestion that the IRS should be abolished. (sound familiar?) Hear what Paul actually said about the NAFTA superhighway in the second part of the clip.
►►May 27, 2013
A digital archive of C–SPAN videoEuropean Parliament members debated a proposed free trade agreement between the European Union (EU) and the U.S. Members from Germany, France, Spain and other European countries expressed some concerns, citing differences with the U.S. in agriculture and environmental policies, intellectual property and Europe’s film and television industry.
When Dr. Ron Paul talks about the NAFTA Super Highway.
This is the Tool (Agenda 21) they use for it and much, much more. They implement it at all the local level of government. This is no joke people. This Is Real! So, to Stop this we must get involved in your local government again. We must become involved in all levels of government again. “We CAN No Longer Elect People And Believe They Will Have Our Best Interest At Heart”. The people running Agenda 21 don’t live in America.
NAFTA was a major step toward an EU-style North American Union; but grassroots pushback has caused elitists to shift strategy to Pacific Rim and European partnerships. Read more
U.S. senators have come to a “bipartisan agreement” to allow comprehensive immigration reform — amnesty. But the price of amnesty literally could mean the end of the country. Read more
Even as the European Union continues to pursue ever-closer “integration” in the name of “global governance,” Obama is now working to form a “Trans-Atlantic partnership” between the U.S. government and the EU under the guise of a so-cal … Read more