Colin Robertson Urges Canada to Embrace "Digital-Age Diplomacy" Towards U.S.

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Can Canada magnify its influence in the United States through Blackberries, not consulates?

Colin Robertson uses the dust-up over a proposed U.S. government study on a new border fee to urge a revamp of Canada's U.S. diplomatic strategy.

Or as he puts it, "wage a permanent campaign in the United States on behalf of Canadian interests."

But how? In the face of tightening budgets, Canada has cut its consulate offices, the traditional way foreign offices advocate for their foreign policy interests and build strong bilateral ties.

Robertson's answer: ditch the office, take the blackberry.  From his The Globe and Mail editorial, whose title regrettably distracts from Robertson's main argument:

The lesson we can draw from both the DHS kerfuffle and the bridge saga is that we need to wage a permanent campaign in the United States on behalf of Canadian interests.

We need a thousand points of contact to complement our embassy and our consulates. This means taking our game to the States because by the time a problem reaches Congress we are fire-fighting.

Recent budget paring in Canada has reduced our consulates in the United States to fifteen. Yet, what we need is representation in every state. We can do it, within budget, by doing diplomacy differently.

Recruit talent from the Canadian expatriates who are already living in each state. Let them practice digital-age diplomacy. Drop the black tie for a BlackBerry and a working knowledge of new media.

With some exceptions – our embassy’s prime location on Pennsylvania Avenue is crucial, and the Los Angeles consul-general’s residence is a second home for Canada’s entertainment industry – these diplomats can work from their homes or incubator offices to spot opportunities for trade and investment.

[Note: I suspect many of these digital diplomats--Canadian or not--will be opting for iPhones over Blackberries.]

I think Robertson's editorial starts a good discussion for all world capitals on how nations can assert their interests in the 21st century. Dispatching staff to various locations, assuming that plane fare and gas reimbursements don't eat away at office savings, does seem to make sense whether its foreign subnational governments, small and medium-sized business, or ex-patriots a point of contact.

And going with Canadian expatriates makes sense as well.

But, as a biased American citizen, I would be remiss if I didn't stress the advantages of enlisting Americans in  any future Canadian digital diplomacy.

DHS Budget: White House Proposes Overall Cut, Biggest Surprise Loser? Coast Guard

So the White House's budget calls for overall cuts to DHS.  But will Congress stick with them?

By Keith Edmund White

Editor in Chief

Mickey McCarter does an excellent job rounding out the White House's budget--something I had hoped to do in more detail, but after two weeks I'm throwing in the towel.

But, keep in mind, that it was Congress that actually kept FY13 spending level at FY12 levels, shielding DHS from sequester.

And with the recent events in Boston, I will not be surprised if attempts to bolster homeland security spending don't find bipartisan support in Congress.  (Note:  Just look at the Massachusetts Democratic primary for John Kerry's former Senate seat.)

Yet, that makes a big assumption:  that Congress will actually pass a FY14 budget, and not punt through continuing resolutions--a move which may or may not affect current agency spending levels. 

Oh, and then there's sequestration.

From McCarter's article on the overall budget:

The White House Wednesday unveiled its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal agencies, calling for $39 billion in discretionary funds for DHS, a reduction in its overall budget.


In a separate proposal pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Disaster Relief Fund would receive $5.6 billion.

The administration compared the overall proposed numbers to enacted levels in FY 2012 as it did not have final numbers for FY 2013, which only were decided on at the time of the signing of a FY 2013 consolidated spending bill on March 26. As compared to final FY 2012 levels, DHS discretionary spending would be down 2 percent in the budget proposal.

...

According to the Homeland Security 2014 Budget in Brief, most DHS agencies would experience budget cuts of five to eight percent, which is in addition to the sequester imposed on the department -- should the sequester continue.

And his article focusing on the tough decisions Napolitano is asking Congress to make:

The increase in spending at the DHS S&T Directorate would go toward fully funding the construction of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan, Kan., Napolitano said.

The facility is necessary to replace the failing Plum Island Animal Disease Center, which soon will not be able to support national requirements to defend against threats posed by biological agents, Napolitano said.

"This innovative federal-state partnership will support the first Bio Level 4 lab facility of its kind, a state-of-the-art bio-containment facility for the study of foreign animal and emerging zoonotic diseases that is central to the protection of the nation's food supply as well as our national and economic security," Napolitano said in her testimony.

The state of Kansas already has put up $320 million to build the center, Napolitano said. DHS must respond with its portion of the funding, totaling $714 million.

"At some point, we have to bite the bullet," Napolitano said of finishing NBAF construction.

The Buddy-less Study? Proposal to Study a Possible U.S. Border Fee Gets Another Opponent

Keith White on growing Congressional opposition to a White House proposal to study the impact of adding a new crossborder fee.

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Bill Owens (D-NY) has pledged to "explore all legislative options" to prevent a proposed DHS study on the "feasibility and cost" of a new border fee at northern and southwestern U.S. border crossings.

Who thought a boilerplate study would generate such buzz?

But when the study relates to slapping a new fee on crossborder travel between the United States and Canada, pushback is to be expected.

A New Canada-U.S. Border Fee? Prospect of a New U.S. Fee Worries Both Sides of the Border

Will the United States slap travelers with a new fee when crossing the Canada-U.S. border?

The White House's proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budget includes boilerplate directing DHS to study the "feasibility" of imposing a new Northern and Southwest cross border fee.

Beyond the Border Observer, a blog from the Woodrow Wilson Center's Canada Institute, provides some useful background and roundup of critical responses in Canada and the United States. 

More on DHS's New FY13 Budget

By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief

More resources on just what DHS's budget, which became official yesterday when President Obama's signed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Continuing Resolution appropriations bill.

(Note:  Author appreciates readers bringing the documents cited below to his attention.)

Readers will find three primary documents below outlining the DHS budget for the remaining 6 months of Fiscal Year (YR) 2013.

Budget Deal Shields DHS Sequestration, For Now

According to Mickey McCarter's illuminating article at HSToday.us, DHS has been largely spared sequestration's across the board cuts.  But, unless replaced, sequestration will bring back automatic cuts over the next nine years.

From HSToday.us's Under Continuing Resolution, DHS Largely Escapes Sequestration:

Congress agreed Thursday to a continuing resolution (HR 933) to fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal year 2013, providing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with a full budget that takes most of the sting out of the automatic budget cuts under sequestration. At least for now. 

Previously, DHS faced cuts across the board in a manner that was allocated to eligible accounts, trimming about five percent of the department's overall budget in FY 2013, according to estimates from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Although the sequester remains in effect under the continuing resolution, the budget bill largely spares DHS from its worst effects for this fiscal year, drawing cuts from other areas to keep budget caps in line with levels spelled out in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

...

DHS could see sequestration cuts in FY 2014 unless the sequester is repealed or DHS is again granted authority to avoid it.

Read the article to see how the FY13 CR impacts DHS's overall budget, especially when it comes to the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Canada, United States & Cyber-Security: With National Efforts Faltering, Will Cross-Border Cooperation Propel Both Nations Cyber-Security Strategies?

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Has the Beyond the Border Initiative become the best hope for the United States and Canada to craft effective cyber-security strategies?

On Friday the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Public Safety Canada (PS) announced a Cyber Security Action Plan, a 4-page document that fleshes out the security-cyber objectives of the Beyond the Border Initiative, a bi-national effort to cooperate on security and border management.

Cyber-Security:  An Important, Cross-Border Issue

First, before delving into the Action Plan and cyber-security in Canada and the United States, it’s important to emphasize the importance of cyber-security to both Canada and the United States.  Whether it’s food supply systems, financial institutions, or energy distribution facilities, all these vital pieces of critical infrastructure are vulnerable to cyber attacks. And, whether through shared fiber optic cable networks or America's extensive use of Canadian-generated electricity, Canada and the United States can’t tackle cyber-security alone.

Cooperation Without Substance?

The Action Plan represents a still early, light-on-details step in DHS and PS coordination—but does show that the two agencies have, at least, identified the goals they wish to accomplish.  Perhaps the two most challenging goals can be found on page 3 of the Action Plan:

1.4 Align and standardize cyber incident management processes and escalation procedures; and

1.5 Enhance technical and operational information sharing in the area of industrial control systems security.

 Why are these goals unlikely to be met anytime soon?  Well, Canada and America seem MIA on even having a national approach to cyber-security.  As pointed out at CUSLI’s 2012 March Conference, the United States really doesn’t have a cyber-security strategy on the national level—with comprehensive cyber-security legislation unlikely to pass Congress this year.  And Canada’s Auditor General, while noting improvement, still hit the nation’s cyber security nerve centre for only running during daytime hours and not being kept in the loop with the most pressing cyber-security threats. 

Just to illustrate how much work still needs to be done, DHS’s National Cyber Security Division—which offers a link to a 2003 National Strategy Report—still, as of today, lists “build[ing] and maintain[ing] an effective national cyber response system” as one of its two objectives.  And, when it comes to Canada, a 2012 article by cyber-security expert Ron Deibert, published by Queen’s University Centre for International and Defence Policy, states “the Canadian government is late to the cyber-security arena…and only barely nods at the importance of a foreign policy for cyberspace.” 

Will Beyond the Border Propel Comprehensive Cyber-Security Strategies in Canada and the United States? 

So, how do two nations do cyber-security coordination when both have lackluster national cyber-security strategies?  Though, a fair counter-argument could be made—taking up a theme pushed in today’s Globe and Mail—that exactly because both nations are only beginning to hammer out their cyber-security strategies, there's greater likelihood that both nations will work together to tackle this pressing issue, unimpeded by entrenched institutional practices and regulations.

Perhaps Canada and America’s individual difficulties on cyber-security will make the Beyond the Border framework the main hub for both nations emerging cyber-security strategies.  Not only is this good news for protecting both nations critical infrastructure, it could also show the value of bilateral approaches to more effectively--and efficiently--solve pressing public policy issues in Canada and the United States.