Archived Articles

Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.

He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.

In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.

Global Real Estate Project
News Index

Directories
  Int'l Realty
  US Realty

Next month's summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, in the Canadian city of Montebello (Quebec) will discuss and possibly accept in one form or another what's now known on the drawing board as Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America. The opposition to this project, ranging from far left alter-globalization groups to rightwing nationalists, is ready for days of action around the date of the summit. The three governments are accused of selling out their national interests in the name of the big business interests; and in the case of Canada, for selling out the country and turning it into annexed territory of the United States. Beyond political rhetoric, nothing suggests that any significant erosion of the national sovereignty will result of this summit. North America for many reasons isn't Europe; any supranational integration will meet fierce opposition far before it becomes a significant project.

The need of accelerated economic cooperation between the three North American economies is beyond discussion. The trade generates jobs, economic growth, and helps moving technologies both ways. The new imperatives for enhanced security, however, act against this mutually beneficial trade. A compromise that will help accelerate the trade without threatening security is therefore necessary. One way of solving this problem is by what's now known as SPP, a series of initiatives that will facilitate the movements of goods, services, and people across the national borders. The exact features of these initiatives are still unclear; everything so far suggests that beyond more intensive cooperation between national agencies there will be little place for new heavy supranational bureaucracies.

A large and heterodox coalition is forming against this new phase of North American economic integration. On the far left, all sorts of groups within alter-globalization movement are mobilizing their forces against the project, seen as an expression of anti-democratic policy. To protect the summit from these groups, the Canadian side will impose a 25-kilometre security perimeter around the town. It's almost 4 times larger than the perimeter erected for the G8 Summit held in Canada in 2002. Unlikely coalition partners against this SPP are certain rightwing nationalistic groups, fearing the dismantling of national states and creation of supranational state in the continent. Together, these two different political formations are accusing the neo-liberalism of the big business in undermining the democratic freedoms and national sovereignty.

The closest approximation of their fears is the European Union, a supranational body that they accuse of eating the democratic freedoms and popular sovereignty in the name of faceless market forces, soulless bureaucracy, and neo-liberal utopia. If not stopped, they say that this neo-liberal project in North America will lead to the same results as in Europe, i.e. to less democracy. A comparison between North America and Europe is however exaggerated. First, the European integration was designed to overcome the national animosities that led to two world wars between 1914 and 1945. Giving up national sovereignty in Europe was purposeful project. Giving up control over key industries there was also done purposefully. Second, democracy in Europe is much younger than bureaucracy. Unlike America, with some minor exceptions, European democracy is relatively late phenomenon.

In North America the situation is indeed very different. Nobody looks at giving up national sovereignty as one-size-fits-all solution. On the contrary, the new security imperatives make it necessary for the governments to take more responsibilities in order to protect their citizens. More coordination between governments is necessary, but it won't take form of supranational bureaucracy. The elected governments so far do the economic integration in North America; there is no reason to believe that this trend will be radically altered. Second, popular government in the United States and popularly responsible government in Canada are in fact older than the European-style bureaucracies in North America. These two nations generally believe in the capacity of their political systems to cope with emerging problems better than some new established ad hoc supra-national authority.

--------------------

See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of North America.