Myth vs. fact: in their myth-busting attempts, the architects of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) use half-truths and lies to conceal the real intent inherent in their plans: building a North American Union.(SPP LIES)(SPP Myths vs. Facts)

When President Bush and his counterparts from Canada and Mexico created the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, they took a substantial step toward unifying the three nations in a North American Union. Aware of the potential for controversy, the SPP has sought to dispel "myths" about the arrangement by posting a document entitled SPP Myths vs Facts to the official SPP website, spp.gov. The document is intended to debunk assertions that the SPP is a further step toward the North American Union. What it does, instead, is cleverly spin the truth, as an examination of the document reveals.

Myth per spp.gov: "The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency."

FACT: The SPP claims, "It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency." Elsewhere, officials stated otherwise. In 2001. Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, called for a North American Community. In remarks that are still available from the web page of the U.S. Embassy, Cellucci says, "It is particularly important that these three countries continue to work together to build this North American community." In fact, even President Bush has admitted that the ultimate goal is union. The admission came at a press conference attended by President Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts at Baylor University on March 23, 2005. "Keeping in mind, in front of us, the European Union," a reporter asked, "how much is this partnership a first step towards continental integration?" Bush responded, saying, "The vision that you asked about in your question as to what kind of union might there be, I see one based upon free trade, that would then entail commitment to markets and democracy, transparency, rule of law."

Myth per spp.gov: "The SPP was an agreement signed by President Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005."

FACT: According to the SPP, the arrangement is a "dialogue" only. "The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed." Strictly speaking, this is true. This fact, however, does not nullify the real impact of the SPP on furthering North American integration. The arrangement is a sort of "soft law" that lays the foundation for future, legally binding arrangements. Soft law has long been used to build international arrangements that eventually are enforced. This has been a common tactic in creating international environmental arrangements. The Worldwatch study After the Earth Summit: The Future of Environmental Governance described this use of soft law. "Paradoxically, one way to make ... agreements more effective is in some cases to make them less enforceable--and therefore more palatable to the negotiators who may initially feel threatened by any loss of sovereignty," the study observed. "So-called 'soft law'--declarations, resolutions, and action plans that nations do not need to formally ratify and are not legally binding--can help to create an international consensus, mobilize aid, and lay the groundwork for the negotiation of binding treaties later."

Myth per spp.gov: "The SPP infringes on the Sovereignty of the United ...