Perimeter Security And The Future Of North American Integration

Posted on Tuesday, March 01 at 10:19 by NAUWATCH

By Dana Gabriel

Out of the ashes of the defunct Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), the U.S. has pursued simultaneous bilateral agendas with both Canada and Mexico, in an effort to further deepen North American economic and security integration. While the NAFTA framework remains intact, a recent announcement by Canada and the U.S. to work towards a trade and security perimeter agreement without Mexico, has some questioning the future of the whole trilateral process.

Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon recently addressed the Council on Foreign Relations where he emphasized Canada-U.S. bilateral achievements and called for greater integration between the two countries. In his speech, Minister Cannon praised the February 4, Beyond the Border declaration issued by President Obama and Prime Minister Harper as, “a bold new step, intended to bring our economic competitiveness and our security perimeter to a higher level of joint commitment.” In regards to shared engagement in the hemisphere, he added, “Our Americas strategy is focused on promoting prosperity, democracy and security.” Cannon acknowledged, “We are working with the U.S. to help Mexico strengthen its police forces and judicial institutions to combat transnational, organized crime.” He also added, “The problems on the U.S. southern border are real but fundamentally different from those on your northern border.” Some have blamed the failure of the SPP on the trilateral approach and believe that it also prevented more meaningful Canada-U.S. bilateralism in areas of security, trade and energy.

In a recent article, Duncan Wood gives some reasons for Mexico being left out of Canada-U.S. negotiations on a perimeter security arrangement. He points to its worsening security situation, differences in development from its NAFTA partners, immigration issues, along with Canada's reluctance to address border issues in a trilateral manner. Duncan also questioned, “What, then, does the perimeter security deal mean for the future of North American relations? I would venture that it marks the official beginning of a two-speed reality in the NAFTA region, with Mexico very much moving on the slower track. Canada will benefit from its deal with the US through closer ties.” Canada does hope to further strengthen its strategic relationship with the U.S. and increase its influence in Washington. The Economist sums up the current state of North American integration, “The main obstacle to trilateral co-operation is that Canada and Mexico are much more interested in their relations with the United States than they are in each other.” In many ways the Canada-U.S. bilateral border security agenda is being replicated through U.S.-Mexico initiatives, but with some variations that reflect the dynamics of the southern border.

full article http://beyourownleader.blogspot.com/2011/02/perimeter-security-and-future-of-north.html
 

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by RickW
    Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:44 am
    http://groups.google.com/group/alt.poli ... 46fc8f522f
    Majority in Poll Back Employees in Public Sector Unions
    Also:
    http://www.alternet.org/story/150067/wo ... 2&rd=1&t=2

    Can these be the first cracks in the rightwingnuts' assinine attempts to take us back to the Dark Ages - all in the name of economic prosperity?

  2. Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:00 pm
    ACTION ALERT: Say no to North American perimeter security!
    http://www.canadians.org/action/2011/bo ... urity.html

  3. Mon Mar 07, 2011 10:46 pm
    I still don't get how this agreement leads to a loss of soverienty or any weakening of our social safety net. Standardization of practices and sharing of information all seems to make sense. If it maintains or increases our acess for goods and people, how is this bad? If it increases our own security (not that I'm insecure now), how is this bad? If it reassures our somewhat paranoid neighbor (whose paranioa is often justified), how is this bad?

  4. Tue Mar 08, 2011 5:25 pm
    Easy. This integration, North American style, ensures that all decisions made about Canada, are made in Washington, not Ottawa. Our government will only exist to get rich for doing nothing CEO style, only there to cut ribbons. Then again, this is already happening! And if there is some sort of 'emergency' in Canada, then US troops can enter Canada to 'assist.' Just like the troops of the reich were sent into Austria and Czechoslovakia to 'assist' with the restoration of order in 1938. As for increasing 'access' for goods and people, what do you mean? We had access to the American market for many, many years with closely managed bi-lateral trade negotiation. It was beneficial for both sides. But the American corporations don't want fairness. They want it all! Silly trade and investment rules burdened with things such as worker and human rights just get in the way. To slowly eliminate these rules, or make them obsolete by NAFTA wasn't moving fast enough. That's why Sept. 11 happened- a new burning of the reichstag-to strip people of rights, to fasttrack the global (wait for it, indy) Banker-corporate-fascist agenda.

  5. Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:27 pm
    US troops can come into Canada now. Just as we sent troops into the US during Katrina. So that arguement falls flat.

    We did have access to the US, but we wanted more access, preferential access without tarrifs. And we got it. NAFTA gave it to us. The SPP or it's iteration doesn't speak to the trade agreement itself, it speaks to common policies to facilitate and secure freight and the movement of people. So again, that arguement falls flat.

    Can you point to any human rights rules that have been eroded since NAFTA was enacted? I don't know of any. I can point to the creation of the Human Rights Tribunal, the Clean Air Act, and a half a dozen other new laws that strengthened since the signing of NAFTA. What's worse now that was better then in Canada?

  6. Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:58 am
    Does this mean US Coastguard coming aboard Canadian boats in Canadian waters, guns drawn,as they do in the US , in the middle of the night, forcing occupants, children included, to the foredeck, while they trash the boat, then leave with impunity? If so, I know many boaters who will make things real messy for them, if they try to invade their boats .

  7. Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:12 pm
    They would still only be able to come into our territory if invited in the case of an emergency (like we did during Katrina).

    I find it strange that it is the far left in Canada that fears this agreement and in the US it is the far right. The Freepers think this agreement is in place to have Canadian troops take away their guns. And the Canadian lefties think it is so American troops can dominate us and take over our borders by stealth. And both of you end your arguements with some threat against armed troops - like either of you would stand a chance against soldiers. At least all the crazies finally can come together. Should we expect to see you guys at a tea party rally soon?

    OK, that was a bit harsh. I don't think any of you are as nuts as Glen Beck. But I really still don't see the issue. Your arguements are wild theories on worst case scenarios of what could happen. The brief information that I have seen on what the agreement actually contains specifies co-ordination of information, standardizing of policy and procedure (such as how to search ocean crates and how many to search) and an increased vigilance to ensure that what comes into NA is better regulated such that the two trading partners can lessen their vigilance along their shared border. It does have clauses in it that detail the use of each other's troops in times of emergency but those that I have seen are no more insidious than what we already have in place. If you can point to a quote from an actual agreement that shows something different, I will definitely change my opinion and state that I am wrong, but I can't find any text on what is actually in it yet. Or is that the fear? Because everything has been done without much publication, the distrust of the government in power is what fuels the suspicion from both the left and the right in their respective countries? In that we can find common ground, but I will reserve judgement until actual text of the agreement is provided.

  8. Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:20 pm
    So you claim the US military is all powerful, and we should just bend over and take whatever they wan to dish out? Tell that to the Vietnamese. They didn't stand a chance against the US military?
    Ya sure!
    If they tried to to board Canadian fish boats, in Canadian waters, they would meet a lot of resistance, including firepower.
    Their firepower didn't help them much, when a friend of mine met them acting macho in a bar, and beat the crap out of several of them.
    In Japan, after the war, the occupation troops kept going missing.
    Recently, when a guy was traveling east of Vancouver on the trans Canada highway, a member of the Texas Highway patrol tried to flag him down. He gave the Texan the finger and continued on. A bit later, a mountie flagged him down, accompanied by a Texas highway patrol guy, They forced him out of his car, leaving his six year old behind, terrified and crying. They wouldn't let him tend to his child, while they searched the car. When they asked him what he does for a living, he said "None of your business."
    Later, they found out what he does for a living. He was a Vancouver cop.
    They said if he had told them that, they would have let him go. He said that was his point ,some one who knows the law gets special treatment. Someone who doesn't gets illegally shit on.He sued them, and was rewarded an undisclosed amount. The Texan was on the next plane out.
    More of this, and they will start to go missing.

    All foreign invaders can count on treasonous quislings to promote apathy among any potential resistance.

  9. by RickW
    Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:43 am
    "Michael Scott" said
    Can you point to any human rights rules that have been eroded since NAFTA was enacted?


    See Patriot Act.

  10. Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:58 pm
    Yanks should make a comparison between the Canadian border, and the entire Canadian coastline, and consider which is easier to control.
    It is self evident that controlling the Canadian border is light years easier than controlling the entire Canadian coastline, plus their own, especially when fighting a war against nationalist partisans in their midst, whom they have trouble telling apart from their own people. .



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