North American Security Perimeter News Round-Up

Buzz is building about Canada and the United States government’s announcing a security perimeter agreement. Three Canadian articles aid in understanding what the deal hopes to accomplish, the steps needed to complete the deal, and—most importantly—the tensions any agreement would have to resolve between the two nations.

SC Magazine makes clear that the soon-to-be announced security perimeter deal is really a package of “around three dozen separate border unification measures” that have already been concluded.

What’s the impetus behind these deals? Well, as CBC reports, the positive trade impact trade of a security perimeter agreement is not lost on Obama administration members like U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Jacobson:

"This is a big deal," Jacobson said as he addressed a manufacturing summit in Montreal. "Particularly in my country people understand that if we're going to move the needle on exports and on trade, and on jobs that are dependent on export and trade, we're going to have a lot more bang for our buck by focusing on Canada."

But, in some ways, the main impact of these agreements may be to return U.S.-Canada to its pre-9-11 trade relationship. From the Vancouver Sun:

He [Ambassador Jacobson] said that in the years following those attacks, the U.S. moved quickly to implement security measures at the border, which caused traffic tieups and "emotional" consternation in Canada. 

"Clearly, as you ramp up security and just slow things down and make it less efficient and make it more onerous, it doesn't look as welcoming. I understand that and all Americans understand that. And that's something that we have worked on with Canadians."

But of course there are those who worry about the implicated of a security perimeter deal. This February 4, 2011 CBC article summarizes the Canadian partisan dynamics surrounding the deal:

The issue has been a hot political topic since a U.S. government watchdog called Canada-U.S. border security "unacceptably ineffective" in a report released on Tuesday. Later that day, PMO spokesman Dimitri Soudas announced that Harper would be travelling to the U.S. to meet with Obama.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff then accused Harper of "talking with President Obama about things he's not prepared to talk to Canadians about."
Robertson told The Canadian Press the government should be keeping other parliamentarians and politicians in the loop. 

"Concerns over privacy, standards and sovereignty need to be assuaged and the case made for how the initiative serves the national interest," he wrote in a forthcoming report for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute and the Canadian International Council. "Mr. Harper needs to confide in Mr. Ignatieff and the premiers." 

Since the release of the U.S. government watchdog's report, opposition MPs have accused the government of not doing enough to stand up to the U.S. 

"Every deal this prime minister has made has led to a thicker border, not a thinner one," NDP MP Brian Masse said. "American politicians continue to slag Canadians as terrorists and they go uncontested every single day."

But with Harper now enjoying a parliamentary majority, it seems any roadblocks on the measures would have to originate in the States—not Canada.

Yet, legal eyes will be watching what legal agreements the nations do--or do not--come to on certain areas. As noted by the articles above, there is concern in Canada that more invasive American border security measures will diminish Canadian privacy expectations. But there will also be issues related to America' and Canada's different immigration policies.

As Reuel S. Amdur points out in The Canadian Charger:

The idea of harmonizing immigration and refugee policy is disturbing. Ours is, in spite of Harper, still a more open policy on refugees, and we are actively promoting selective immigration, with many people coming from countries that are on Washington’s radar.

 As far as security is concerned, we are already involved in NORAD and are paying around 10% of its operational costs. As with the $16 billion or so for fighter jets, against whom are we defending ourselves and our American betters? And should we be wary of American agents operating in Canada? A number have arrests warrants out for them on a kidnapping charge in Italy.