North American Security Perimeter Called Good Idea

Posted on Monday, May 30 at 10:26 by sthompson
Answer from Jack Devine, president and founding partner of the Arkin Group LLC, and a former CIA deputy director and acting director of operations: Establishing a 'security perimeter' is an important goal for the United States, Canada and Mexico. The task of defending large and open societies such as ours is enormous and can best be done in a systematic and coordinated manner. Since the passage of NAFTA, the three countries have become more economically linked than ever. More than 16 million containers of goods arrive in the United States by ship, truck, and rail each year, with the vast majority coming from Canada and Mexico. Still, our efforts to integrate operations along the borders-from the physical screening of goods and people to the sharing of watch lists, law enforcement data and intelligence-remain lacking. Since Sept. 11, we in the United States realize the possibility that terrorists might infiltrate the country via our northern and southern borders, and we have sought to strengthen and streamline our homeland security by increasing the information sharing among federal and state government agencies. Canada and Mexico have taken steps to increase their own security as well. Now, as the tri-national task force rightly suggests, it's time for the three countries to work together. Answer from Andre Belelieu, assistant director at the U.S. office of Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue: The proposal to establish a common security perimeter in North America is feasible, but will require a sustained level of political will that has not always been present in intra-North American relations over the past few years to overcome sovereignty issues and policy differences. Whether such a solution is feasible is very different from whether all three countries would ultimately see it as desirable. Portions of Inter-American Dialogue's Latin America Advisor run each Wednesday and Saturday. Original article: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/11759760.htm [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on May 30, 2005]

Note: http://www.miami.com/ml... http://www.miami.com/ml...

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Mon May 30, 2005 7:13 pm
    "Now, as the tri-national task force rightly suggests, it's time for the three countries to work together."<br />
    <br />
    This statement seems to imply that the involved nations have hithertoe been working completely independent of one another.<br />
    <br />
    This is just not true, as can be seen here:<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.canadianembassy.org/border/immigration-en.asp">http://www.canadianembassy.org/border/immigration-en.asp</a><br />
    <br />
    <p>---<br>"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).<br />

  2. Tue May 31, 2005 2:54 am
    A North American security perimeter is an excellent idea - especially for Canada and Mexico because we're too poor to provide for our own security. Our security relationship with the United States these past fifty years has benefitted Canada immensely at little expense to ourselves - it reveals that we're cheapskates who don't pull our weight, but at least it is some measure of security.

    Left to our own devices Canada would be overrun by smugglers and terrorists - and there would be an iron curtain along the 49th parallel, which would mean we would have much more difficult access to the biggest market in the world and of course be much poorer because of that.

  3. Tue May 31, 2005 5:07 am
    I hope your being sarcastic, because thats idiotic.
    We are quite capable of pulling our own millitary wieght, just because the current power brokers have purposefully left our millitary is Disrepair is no reason to say We as Canadians can not pull our weight in terms of security.
    For as long as the current Liberal Cabal has been in power, it perhaps has been true, definately over the last 8 years, but a joint security perimeter really means that we will really have the US pulling EVEN MORE of our weight, so then we will be EVEN MORE their bitch. Plus if there is ever a big bad terror attack on a US city, we too will get tanks on our streets. Who wants American and Mexican troops on their streets? No one, not even Americans and Mexians. Its all a bunch of bullshit. Imagine a short while before World War 2. Right now, We are Austria.....
    get the picture?

    "Those who would give up their Liberty for Security, Deserve Neither" Benjamin Franklin

  4. Tue May 31, 2005 6:50 am
    I would have to agree with anon, we are in deep poop! We better open our eyes before they are opened for us, and it is too late!

    ---
    If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

  5. Tue May 31, 2005 5:01 pm
    The first step to stop terrorism is by pulling multinationals out of so called "developing countries". Those people who are desperate enough and willing to blow themselves up to show their resistance are not against the people of the USA, or Canada and especially not of Mexico, where NAFTA has already created 70% poverty and destitution rate, but against multinational corporations stealing their eyes out, in many cases involved in paramilitary murder spreas, financing militias, dictators and corruption. Wherever these multinational oil, mining etc. corporations move in poverty, starvation and environmental destruction follows. Foreign investment is nothing more than a racket for explotation. Stop it and the major cause of terrorism is gone. No country that has assets where foreign investment moves in, needs it. E.g. Canada never needed a penny of it. Neither does Indonesia, Iraq, or any country, because they can create their own capital based on the same resources foreign investment moves in for and dispossesses the people.
    If you want to cure an illness, try to look for the causes, not for band aids over compound fractures. Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

  6. Tue May 31, 2005 5:46 pm
    <blockquote>we're too poor to provide for our own security. Our security relationship with the United States these past fifty years has benefitted Canada immensely at little expense to ourselves - it reveals that we're cheapskates who don't pull our weight, but at least it is some measure of security.<br><br> Left to our own devices Canada would be overrun by smugglers and terrorists - and there would be an iron curtain along the 49th parallel, which would mean we would have much more difficult access to the biggest market in the world and of course be much poorer because of that.</blockquote> Anyone who has spent a bit of time learning about their federal government's programs will understand the above to be absurd.<br><br> As per the old Globe and Mail ad, "there's opinion and then there's informed opinion." If you can't be bothered to put a bit of time into gaining the latter, why bother post at all?<br><br> <p>---<br>"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).<br />



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news