WikiLeaks’ Evidence of North American Union, April 28, 2011; NAU-01

Gulag Bound
by Arlen Williams & Tallulah Starr

Gulag Bound will be logging a number of entries about the facts (and any potential opinions) of plans for “North American Integration,” also called “North American Union.”

Over the last few years, researchers and whistleblowers of attempts to integrate the nations of Canada, Mexico and the United States of America have been overwhelmingly ridiculed. Some of that ridicule has been all but invited, by extravagant claims made without documentation or citation and much of it continues to be suspect.

But now we do have documentation and citations to make. Gulag Bound will number our entries. Our first designation is NAU-01.

The failure of the news media (including conservative media, blogs not exempted) to report on the following leaked cable speaks loudly in its silence. However, the John Birch Society, much more often right than wrong, as the unfolding of recent history demonstrates, have not failed.

An article, “WikiLeaks Exposes North American Integration Plot,” in their New American reported the April 28th news on May 2nd.

This unrefuted memo, from George W. Bush appointed U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, demonstrates an agenda far beyond favored trading status between the three nations. Rather, it is a short essay on incrementalism vs. a “big deal” approach aimed at thorough political “integration” (to the extent of making “union” synonymous). Since it was drafted by our ambassador to Canada, it tends to emphasize the U.S.-Canadian relationship, but even where it does, it refers to the overall North American goal.

Before further comments are made, the memo follows, as copied from, with minor formatting adjustments. The Bush Administration has “spoken for itself” (and we have evidence of nothing but a worse course taken by the Obama Administration). Gulag Bound’s sparing emphasis in certain places is made in bold.

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the
original cable is not available.

281556Z Jan 05









E.O. 12958: N/A

REF: (A) 04 Ottawa 3431 (Regulatory agenda)

(B) 04 Ottawa 066 (Canadian trade policy)



2. (SBU) An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks
for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain
the most support among Canadian policymakers. Our research
leads us to conclude that such a package should tackle both
“security” and “prosperity” goals. This fits the
recommendations of Canadian economists who have assessed the
options for continental integration. While in principle
many of them support more ambitious integration goals, like
a customs union/single market and/or single currency, most
believe the incremental approach is most appropriate at this
time, and all agree that it helps pave the way to these
goals if and when North Americans choose to pursue them.

3. (SBU) The economic payoff of the prospective North
American initiative – in terms of higher incomes and greater
competitiveness – is available, but its size and timing are
unpredictable, so it should not be oversold. Still, a
respectable economic case has been made for such an
initiative, and this message spells it out. We believe
that, given growing Canadian concern about “border risk” and
its effects on investment, a focus on the “security” side
could also produce the most substantial economic/trade



4. (SBU) Canadian economists in business, academia and
government have given extensive thought to the possible
options for further North American integration. Nearly all
of this work assumes that each of the three countries is
pursuing standard economic policy goals – growth,
productivity and competitiveness (rather than more specific
concerns raised by Mexican analysts such as migration
management, regional development, or environmental
protection). Since 9/11, Canadian economists working in
this area have generally endorsed a comprehensive initiative
with the United States on security, trade, and immigration.

Following is our summary of the professional consensus:

PROCESS: At this time, an “incremental” approach to
integration is probably better than a “big deal”
approach. However, governments should focus on
choosing their objectives, and not on choosing a

BORDER VS. PERIMETER: Even with zero tariffs, our land
borders have strong commercial effects. Some of these
effects are positive (such as law enforcement and data
gathering), so our governments may always want to keep
some kind of land border in place
. Canada and the
United States already share a security perimeter to
some degree; it is just a question of how strong we
want to make it.

BORDER RISK: The risk that business will be obstructed
at the border by discretionary U.S. actions
, such as
measures to defend against terrorism or infectious
disease, in addition to growing congestion, have become
major risks to the economy, inhibiting investment in
Canada. For small businesses, the complexities of
navigating the border are apparently even more
intimidating than the actual costs. Reducing this risk
is Canada’s top motive for pursuing further

LABOR MARKETS: Many Canadian economists point to labor
markets – both within and among countries – as the
factor market where more liberalization would deliver
the greatest economic benefits for all three countries.
They advocate freeing up professional licensing laws,
and developing a quick, simple, low-cost work permit
system, at least for U.S. and Canadian citizens.

REGULATION: Canadian economists agree that Canadian
regulations (if not their standards, then their
complexity) are needlessly restricting foreign
and impeding food, communications and other
industries. (Inter-provincial differences are
important here, since Canada’s federal government does
not have the benefit of a U.S.-style “interstate
commerce” clause). While much of the problem is
domestic in nature, an international initiative could
help to catalyze change.

CUSTOMS UNION: A common external tariff, or a customs
union which eliminated NAFTA’s rules of origin (ROO),
is economically desirable. NAFTA’s ROO are so
restrictive that importers often prefer to pay the
tariff rather than try to prove North American origin.
However, economists differ on the size of the benefits
available and on whether these would justify the effort
of negotiation. One study estimated that a full
customs union which eliminated ROO would only raise
national income by about one percent.

CURRENCY UNION: Canadian economists are split on
whether a return to a fixed exchange rate, or adopting
the U.S. dollar, would benefit Canada in current
circumstances. (Canada last tied its dollar to the
U.S. dollar from 1962 to 1970). The central bank
governor has taken the position that “monetary union is
an issue that should be considered once we have made
more progress towards establishing a single market.”


5. (SBU) Past integration (not just NAFTA but also many
bilateral and unilateral steps) has increased trade,
economic growth, and productivity. Studies suggest
that border efficiency and transportation improvements
(such as the lower cost and increased use of air
freight) have been a huge part of this picture.
Indeed, they may have been more important to our
growing prosperity over the past decade than NAFTA’s
tariff reductions. Freight and passenger aviation are
critically important to our continent’s
competitiveness, and businesses are very sensitive to
the timing, security, and reliability of deliveries –
hence the “border risk” which so concerns Canadian

6. (SBU) A stronger continental “security perimeter”
can strengthen economic performance, mainly by
improving efficiency at land borders and airports. It
could also facilitate future steps toward “>trilateral
economic integration
, such as a common external tariff
or a customs union
, if and when our three countries
chose to pursue them. Paradoxically, the security and
law enforcement aspects
of the envisioned initiative
could hold as much – or more – potential for broad
economic benefits than the economic dimension.

7. (SBU) Some international economic initiatives (such
as FTAs) produce across-the-board measures that
generate broad benefits for a country’s industries and
consumers on a known time-line. This was true of NAFTA
but it is less likely to be true of the economic
aspects of the NAI. Non-tariff barriers such as
standards and regulations generally must be tackled one-
by-one. This is a piecemeal process and the ratio of
payoff to effort is likely to be lower than with across-
the-board measures. Governments naturally focus on
resolving the problems which their firms or citizens
bring to their attention. While this approach has
merits, it tends to deliver the payoffs toward
particular interests. If there are hidden costs, there
might be little impact on national performance. As we
move toward a list of barriers to tackle, it will
remain important to balance those interests. For
example, some Canadian economists have suggested that
NAFTA fell short of expectations with respect to
increasing consumer choice in Canada; that may be a
theme we should stress as efforts to promote further
take shape.

8. (SBU) In contrast, cooperative measures on the
“security” side, a critical focus of current bilateral
efforts, can deliver substantial, early, and
widespread economic benefits. Security and law
enforcement within North America have evolved rapidly
since 9/11, leading to many less-than-perfect processes
for handling legitimate international traffic.
Collaboration to improve these processes could yield
efficiency improvements which would automatically be
spread widely across the economy, leading to general
gains in trade, productivity, and incomes.


9. (SBU) There is little basis on which to estimate the
size of the “upside” gains from an integration
initiative concentrating on non-tariff barriers of the
kind contained in NAI. For this reason, we cannot make
claims about how large the benefits might be on a
national or continental scale. When advocating NAI, it
would be better to highlight specific gains to
individual firms, industries or travelers, and
especially consumers.


There is more to come soon.


Author: Admin

Related Articles

8 thoughts on “WikiLeaks’ Evidence of North American Union, April 28, 2011; NAU-01

  1. Hi, I’m Mexican but was raised in the USA. I’ve lived here more years than i have in Mexico. I hung around with black ppl, white ppl, hispanics etc. I love my culture and respect the US constitution. So much as to almost join the army, untill I looked at all the corruption going on behing close doors. I can’t dismiss it as conspiracy because of all the evidence, sometimes you got to look between the lines and not listen so much to mainstream meadia wich does not cover or does not want to cover the truth. I don’t like to judge but istead of all the cursewords and hatred we need to focus on better things than argue with one another while more important stuff goes on without our knowledge. Like did you know that the denver mint, minted a north american union coin called the amero? sounds familiar? it sounds like euro to me, and smells like the same people that planned the euro are now planning the amero, dont know maybe I’m wrong but instead of wondering we should have our facts strait so we know the truth. Just look at the corruption in europe, you won’t see it on the news but thanks to sites like youtube, facebook etc. we are able to comunicate much faster than it was possible, but it seems no one wants to talk about it becase it is not the hot topic on mtv hollywood or even the media. So if anyone wants to add me as a friend on facebook my e-mail is I have some info about it. I just started this to inform the people, both Mexicans and Americans. i added the Canadian flag as this NAU includes Canada. Please spread the word and Please (if you can) copy and paste this (info) in any blogger site you can. Thank you and GOD bless Mexico and the USA.

  2. This is also part and parcel of Agenda 21.

    We have entered another Tower of Babel episode. Heaven help us.

  3. This indeed has been the goal of the progressives for some time now and is nearing its completion more and more each day; they will only announce the union when they can fool the American people into going along with it when a series of emergencies – drug cartels, terrorist threats, etc. – occur, and most of us are aware now that the government progressives are setting us up for such events and their own seizing of control in the end for the new world style of government where the traditional liberties and freedoms of the USA will mean nothing.

  4. I have known about this for at least two years, it is obvious they are getting closer to their goal. Hillary Clinton gave one of her exuberant speeches about how America is an aging population and South America is young and vibrant and full of ideas and it will be a pleasure to do business with them.It included more than just Mexico, its all of S. America, Brazil, Columbia etc.

    I personally see no benefits for anyone but the elite dealing with each other. In all honesty this has put my life on hold for years now, afraid to buy a house , afraid to spend any money, and whose big idea was this? The CFR and the UN who is being serviced by Obama with that crackpot George Soros gloating in the background. I see nothing good coming from this, and I see nothing dramatic happening in the economy stemming from this, people are practically giving their homes away, the jobs are gone, they are not coming back, who is all of this economic developement for?? no one here will have a dime left and probably no home either. The drug cartel in Mexico doesn’t take orders from us, or anyone, they will be a problem too.

    I have read several articles on this and they are all about the same, the CFR is, of course, in control of this , there will be the Federal reserves one world bank, all of the Federal Reserve bankers are members of the CFR. They also answer to the Rothchilds. Once they take down America it will not be fixable, especially with the incompatible immigrants they have brought in to America and almost every country in Europe, we will always be in chaos, all are having problems,Once they get what they want the power elite will wish America was still America. If they ever brought home our troops to find their country is gone they will have another problem on their hands, therefore I don’t believe we will be seeing them again anytime soon if ever.Our troops have been put on a potential terrorist list already by that Innkeeper, Janet Napolitano who is head of the Homeland security.Growing your own food puts you on the same list along with stockpiling more than two weeks worth of food. They should just shoot us and get it over with.Our tax dollars have been stolen to pay for all their luxuries, a two mile tunnel to escape to, stockpiled with food, more than two weeks worth, actuaslly our tax dollars are being sdtolen for people who have no right to them. Nothing is done, why not? how many poeople can they buy? better yet, what kind of people are they?

    No one wants to lose their country, I don’t , but I honestly don’t think this is going to work, especially with the Muslims involved. I have no idea what that is all about but I can promise you they will wipe out all infidels, including our Government and the power elite, they talk about the whitehouse as their new Major Mosque, I believe them.

    This all stems from the newpapers shutting out news, it says in our constitution there shall be a free press, obviously they turned on us in favor of the Rockefeller money. People out there with no Computers have no idea what is going on, that deception worked.Here is another article I read quite awhile ago on the NAU

    1. “Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries, after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations.” — Comintern 1936

  5. The North American Model Legislature
    Tempe (Arizona), May 29th to June 3rd, 2011


    The North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) is a non-profit organization based in Montreal. NAFI, created in 2002, aims to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region.

    Over the first two years of its existence, NAFI organized conferences which brought together government and academic figures as well as business people. The first conference organized by NAFI, entitled “Beyond Free Trade: Strengthening North America” was held in Montreal in March 2003. This conference was attended by 280 people, as well as prominent conference speakers. The second NAFI conference took place in April 2004 in Monterrey (Mexico) and focused on North American energy resources, as well as the creation of a North American energy fund. About 200 participants and conference speakers took part in the conference, among which the former Energy Minister, Mr. Felipe Calderon.

    In the following years, NAFI organized an annual North American mock parliament, called the Triumvirate. This innovative event allows a hundred Canadian, American and Mexican university students to better understand the North American dynamic as well as the challenges faced by NAFTA partners. A first edition took place in the Canadian Senate in May 2005, under the presidency of ex-Ambassador Mr. Raymond Chrétien. The second edition took place in the Mexican Senate in May 2006, under the invitation of its president, Senator Enrique Jackson. In May 2007, the Triumvirate will take place in Washington D.C., in the Inter-American Development Bank and American University. A hundred students from fifteen North American universities will participate as legislators, lobbyists and journalists.


    On a general basis, the objectives of NAFI are:

    * Making the academic world, the public and decision-makers aware of the challenges posed by integration between the three NAFTA countries;
    * Identifying the elements of the North American agenda which would allow the consolidation and reinforcement of the North American region;

    * Favouring the creation of North American networks to set the basis for a trilateral dialogue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *