This time last year, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched two U.S.-Canada initiatives, one to negotiate greater federal regulatory cooperation, and the other to negotiate border security improvements. One year later, how are they doing on the border?
In Seattle last week, the Border Policy Research Institute (BPRI) at Western Washington University convened a seminar to ask that question. The BPRI is an outstanding think tank, regularly producing new data and thoughtful analysis of what is happening on the U.S.-Canadian border. Their reports and conferences are unmissable for policymakers, business leaders, and scholars in both countries.
And such was the case in Seattle: Those in attendance received a briefing from David Heyman, Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and from Paul Haddow, Director of the Border Implementation Team in Canada's Privy Council Office. The two senior officials gave a joint presentation, emphasizing how closely they coordinated and how fully they agreed.
Heyman and Haddow were pleased by the progress made by the U.S.-Canada Beyond the Border Working Group -- made up of government officials on both sides -- thus far. It has concentrated on moving the two countries toward joint threat assessment, improved information sharing, traveler entry-exit record keeping and sharing, and more sophisticated screening of cargo and passengers at the "perimetre" -- when they first enter North America.
These efforts have several goals and targets that give an idea of what the two governments hope to accomplish through these negotiations. The United States and Canada hope to eliminate duplictative inspections and reduce red tape for travelers and shippers.
To accomplish this, the governments are looking at ways to expand participation in trusted traveler and shipper programs, conduct more pre-clearance of shipments before they reach the border, and make things easier for business travelers who cross regularly.
Customs inspectors in both countries are developing wait time service level targets as a measurement of performance. And the two governments have committed not only to continuing improvements to infrastructure and technology at the border, but also to jointly meet future infrastructure needs.
So far, Heyman and Haddow reported to the BPRI audience that a joint threat assessment is underway. Additionally, the governments have begun work on an inventory of "domain awareness" at the border that will identify gaps and ways to close them (with technology and personnel, as appropriate) by next fall.
Complementing this inventory is to be a bi-national border investment plan that aims to lower costs for both, as well as to end uncoordinated upgrades and closures of border crossings that had been a source of embarrassment as well as waste for both Washington and Ottawa.
The perimeter approach to security envisioned by Obama and Harper is not going to eliminate screening at the land border and airports, but should make it more efficient. People and goods will be "screened once, and cleared twice" -- meaning that once either side had conducted an inspection or interview and given approval to proceed, the other side would accept that judgment as its own (and have instant access to the information that supported the judgment via shared data).
Heyman offered a provocative analogy of how this could eventually work: Since 1957, the United States and Canada have conducted joint threat assessment, inspection, and responses as part of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command). What has worked for half a century to protect both countries from Soviet bombers -- and provided a structure for coordinating U.S. and Canadian air defences on September 11, 2001 -- could be a model for how the two countries might handle the protection of citizens against 21st-century threats from terrorism, pandemics, cyberattacks, and organized crime.
A military analogy is revealing in another way. Before 2001, the border was a place where the governments worried about collecting revenue; today, customs agencies clearly view themselves as playing a key part in national security. What has frustrated many people has been the uncompromising hard-line attitude of the military grafted onto the petty bureaucratic mindset of tax collectors, resulting in a border of horrors.
The new border order being negotiated promises to complete the transformation of our border security efforts into effective defences that pose no threat to innocent travel and commerce. One year in, the two governments are making good progress.
Follow Christopher Sands on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sandsathudson
Maude Barlow: Big Business Winner of Harper-Obama Border Deal
Harper's Border Deal Expands the National Security State ...
Canada News: Tim Harper: Border pact backlash could have been ...
Beyond The Border: Harper, Obama Announce Deal To Bolster ...
Obama, Harper agree to speed trade, traffic across border - CNN
Obama-Harper border plan spells relief - City of Buffalo - The Buffalo ...
The Canadian border guards are way more pleasant but it's extremely annoying to be lined up for ages because only one port is open. I guess the government would have to pay them overtime especially on a long weekend.
What I would HOPE this means, is that just maybe they would ask less questions on the return trip? Or even better, like a "speed-pass" .... where your license plate would be read upon entering the booth, and the information from the previous pass pops up, giving them the who-what-when-where-why! ... and on you go!
http://www.canadians.org/publications/subscribe/enews/2011/feb8.html
http://casey.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=3115d5f5-2f86-42b4-afb5-168d994733b7
&
http://schumer.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=331753
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/highlights/new_op.xml
Among the various U.S. agencies, it will also include the participation of the RCMP who will pass on any pertinent information to Canada Border Services and the Ontario Provincial Police.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/on/news-nouvelles/2011/11-03-24-windsor-eng.htm
The new center is intended to, “bring about an increased unity of effort among participating agencies and help maximize resource utilization. The OIC will also draw support from field assets, intelligence resources, and a variety of technologies.”
This could be the first of many such facilities which will expand surveillance capabilities and further militarize the northern border.
&
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/04/declaration-president-obama-and-prime-minister-harper-canada-beyond-bord
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/highlights/new_op.xml
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/on/news-nouvelles/2011/11-03-24-windsor-eng.htm
http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/testimony_1299683039975.shtm
http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press.MajorityNews&ContentRecord_id=e2943abe-5056-8059-7624-010e8df07dfe
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-97
http://www.canadians.org/publications/subscribe/enews/2011/feb8.html
On the same day that Ralph Nader publishes his Open Letter to Stephen Harper:
http://rabble.ca/news/2011/04/ralph-nadar-open-letter-stephen-harper-canada-us-deep-integration
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/980795--beware-deep-integration
-US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.
-Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.
But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.
By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not remains a full fledged member of America's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.
Canada would no longer have an independent foreign policy. Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, its bogus "war on terrorism which is used as a pretext for waging war in the Middle East. .
The Canadian judicial system would be affected. Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6572
Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the "conquering nation" has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories.
Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of big business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US.
Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US corporate expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures, public security, intelligence and law enforcement.
No doubt, Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something which is "in the national interest", which "will create jobs for Canadians", and "will make Canada more secure".
Ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6572
by Michel Chossudovsky
Canadian jurisdiction over its Northern territories was redefined, following an April 2002 military agreement between Ottawa and Washington. This agreement allows for the deployment of US troops anywhere in Canada, as well as the stationing of US warships in Canada's territorial waters.
Following the creation of US Northern Command in April 2002, Washington announced unilaterally that NORTHCOM's territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, air) extended from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian arctic territories.
"The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),
NORTHCOM's stated mandate was to "provide a necessary focus for [continental] aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for [the] nation’s [US] civil authorities in times of national need."
(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership – July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR),
http://www.cdfai.org/2002CanadaUSStrategicPartnershipConference.htm
&
http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/Hale/Special%20Reports/Martial%20Law/Canada-US%20Relations%20-%20Defence%20Partnership.htm
Philippe Lagassé holds a Master's degree from the War Studies Program at the Royal Military College, Kingston