Bush Bolsters Ties With Mexico, Canada

By Ben Feller

MONTEBELLO, Quebec (AP) - President Bush, tending to relations with two border nations, sought Monday to invigorate his partnership with like-minded leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Bush arrived by mid-afternoon in the Canadian countryside, where he will promote North American integration with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Police in riot gear pushed back dozens of protesters marching just outside the gate of the resort compound, where a few hundred people gathered in demonstration.

"I heard it's nothing," Harper said, dismissing the protests as Bush arrived at the posh Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello. Bush ducked a question about it and just smiled.

The two-day summit is the third of its kind during Bush's presidency, and each one has been meant to bolster a compact - dubbed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America - that serves as a way for the nations to team up on health, security and commerce.

The partnership of the countries is a framework for working out problems - not a deal that was ever intended to produce dramatic announcements. In turn, the White House sought to lower expectations that something bold would emerge from the meetings.

"I don't expect any major announcements," Bush spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "I think it's a continuance of discussions that we have regularly with our two closest neighbors."

For Bush, the event also allows him to show that he does not take his neighbors for granted; they are both vital trading partners and energy providers for the U.S."The message for Canada and Mexico is that despite the ongoing emphasis on Iraq and terrorism in U.S. foreign policy ... the U.S. is investing time and attention on relationships with our own region," said Chris Sands, a scholar of North American studies and senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

(I have omitted a portion of the article that I don't believe is germane to this discussion. All emphasis in this article are mine - ed.)

Personally, Bush shares plenty of views with Harper and Calderon, two fellow conservatives and free-market advocates who have come into power during his second term.

It's not all cheery. Critics are angry about Canada's troop presence in Afghanistan and about the partnership among the three countries. Some Canadians see it as an insidious threat to their sovereignty, led by the United States.

The summit site is about 50 miles to the east of Ottawa, the Canadian capital.
The broad theme of the event is economic prosperity, built around several topics: border security, competitiveness with India and China, product safety and energy solutions.

Bush will also be faced with matters of specific concern to each of the countries.

He began with Harper.

Bush is sure to thank Harper for Canada's commitment to keeping troops in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Harper is frustrated over a U.S. law that tightened passport rules for Canadians visiting the U.S., although Bush has pledged to enforce it and has little leeway.

Harper is also expected to assert his nation's claim to the fabled Northwest Passage through the resource-rich Arctic. Competition to control the Arctic has intensified with global warming; Russia sent two small submarines to plant a tiny national flag under the North Pole this month. The U.S. and Norway also have claims.

"We look at the Northwest Passage as an international waterway, and want the international transit rights to be respected there," Johndroe said. "But certainly President Bush will listen to what Prime Minister Harper has to say."

Bush and Calderon will have their own one-on-one session later Monday.

With them, the messy issue of immigration looms large. The last time these two leaders met, in March in Mexico, Bush was optimistic about getting a new immigration law.

Since then, his plan died in Congress.

So Bush recently issued an executive order meant to tighten border security, streamline guest-worker programs and pressure employers to fire illegal immigrant workers.

The three leaders will join at day's end for dinner, then resume talks Tuesday.

I'm becoming concerned that this Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America thing is going to be just what some have been suggesting - the beginning of a union of the countries on the North American continent similar to the European Union. A union of this type will allow free movement of people from one country to another. Is this a way of getting around the objection of the vast majority of United States citizens to the constant crossing into the US of illegal aliens, specifically from Mexico?

Let's see who would benefit from such a union. The US and possibly Canada would benefit by the thousands of Mexicans who would swarm into the US looking for better paying jobs, better living conditions, and a better life for their families. Canadians and Mexicans would benefit by availing themselves of the benefits of the US health system. Sure, Canada has socialized (and cheaper) medicine, but what good is it if you have to wait for months just to get a simple MIR? Our health system is more expensive, but at least we can get MIR and other tests done within hours, or at most days, of when they are ordered. Maybe drug costs will go down in the US. Drugs in both Canada and Mexico are cheap compared to the US. I trust pharmaceutical companies in Canada, but I'm not so sure about Mexican drugs. Sorry, I just don't know enough about them. Will the oil we get from Canada and Mexico be cheaper than it is now? Will our infrastructure costs be reduced under such a union?

I can't say about the oil, but I doubt it will be cheaper under such a "partnership" and you know that there will be more people coming over the southern border to avail themselves of the American dream. Canadians come here now to get tests that will take weeks or months to get in Canada. The FDA and American drug companies have been blocking the importation of Canadian drugs into the US because they don't know that Canadian drug companies adhere to our standards. If we go into a North American partnership, will Canadian drugs suddenly be up to US standards? I guess we'll find out if this partnership goes forward.

I'm don't want to make this an immigration issue, but I wonder if that wasn't a back-up plan all along. It's why Bush began back peddling on the whole immigration issue. He knew he had this on the back burner as Plan B.

It's looking rather like Plan 9 from Outer Space for the American economy. Look, I'm all for progress. I'm all for legal immigration, but I'm not for a North American Union. I see no benefits to the US. Can someone please tell me where the benefit would be to the US to be part of such a union? Other than being part of the "partnership", that is.

Do we want to be a sovereign nation, or be part of a committee? That's what it will come to, one day. It won't be our leaders, such as they are making decisions, but a committee of representatives. Hmmmm....doesn't that sound something like the United Nations?

And we know what a success that has been.