Introduction
In the instant aftermath of September 11 terrorist attacks, boarder security concept took on an unfamiliar and new meaning for Canada. The Canadians were for a long time used to the notion of a demilitarized and undefended boarder. Simultaneously, the need for a monitored and protected boarder has for a long time been obvious when it comes to issues like illegal immigration, gun trafficking, transnational crime and even mundanities of generation of revenue through Canada Customs. For that reason, this paper centers on Canadian Border Policy and more particularly on the concept of Fortress North America, or the Perimeter Security where it attempts to examine the arguments for and against moving towards it.
What changed instantaneously after September 11 did not actually involve an extensive invention of the border security concept, but rather a profound shift in the focus. Two new elements were present to this shift. One was urgent necessity to seal the Canadian border against the looming transnational terrorist terrorizations, whether they involved movement of the terrorist cells and individuals, weaponry passage, money transfer, dual-use technology movement, or cross-border critical infrastructure protection (Ackelson 2009). National Security prerogative behind combating terrorism efforts at the boarder was essentially based on an obligation of the need to both protect Canada and prevent it from being used like a portal to US, or elsewhere, for the terrorist activities. The two prerogatives were eventually written into the national security strategy framework of Canada.
Another dimension to affect an evolving post 9/11 border security idea was essentially recognition of potential gap between American and Canadian perspectives. The post 9/11 exchange of ideas had to be pursued between the two countries with diverse conceptions of the border security. Canadian vision acknowledged the necessity for a tighter border, but then again sought to lay emphasis on the importance of sustaining open conduit for travel and trade, so vital to the Canadian economy (Burt 2009). The Canadian government initially found itself betrothed in task of selling a strengthened border security image to American public plus of fighting back the false border threat stories. The campaign started straightaway after September 11, in face of the media concoctions on the two border sides that a number or all of the hijackers were from Canada. This has continued since then.
Canadian Border Policy in early months of crisis was fashioned on necessity to strengthen the security controls on the border besides reaching a new understanding with US about an open and secure border, open at least to right kind of trade as well as right movement of individuals and goods. At highest level, John Manly and Tom Ridge handled the negotiations over a fresh framework for the border. Responsibility for American “file” in Ottawa was shifted subtly from Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) to Privy Council Office to serve Manly together with his needs in a better way (Globerman, Steven, and Storer 2008).
Smart Border Declaration
These debates ultimately resulted to December 12, 2001 signing of Canada-US Smart Border Declaration. This Declaration talked about inter-relationship between economic security and public security, a topic that would continue in subsequent debates of Canada-US border security. The Declaration used “Zone of confidence against terrorist activities” phrase to define the plan for strengthened border. An important point to note is that this Declaration came with more detailed Action plan for execution that initially included thirty points, but has at present has risen to 32. With this Action plan both governments made it clear that upcoming measures of border security would actually be driven by need for integrated efforts and policies harmonization.
Pillars of the Action Plan
The four pillars of this Action Plan include secure flow of individuals, secure infrastructure, secure flow of goods, and coordination and information sharing. Smart Boarder Declaration was essentially designed to augment and reinforce the existing measures for Canada-US protection. It specifically served Canadian interests through demonstrating commitment to strengthen the border security, while at the same time facilitated movement of goods and people.
On the other hand, the Declaration served American interests by meeting its security demands. Close cooperation on the border security, as visualized in Smart Border Declaration, developed, after some delay, into key institutional reforms in Canadian government (United States Department of Homeland Security 2002). For instance, Paul Martin, the Prime Minister announced the formation of a key new ministry, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (PSPEPC). The Incentives behind the public safety ministry creation were in a number of respects similar to the forces, which had previously driven the creation of gargantuan Homeland Security Department in US. Thus, there was correspondingly the need for a robust leadership in what, after the September 11, had come to be a crucial government priority.
Resurgence of Perimeter Security
Pre-9/11 problems with persistence of the trade protectionism as well as boarder red tape paled in comparison to influence that an invigorated boarder might have on Canadian economy. American vision came to the equilibrium in a different way. Trade and maintenance of the friendly relations mattered. However, as the phase went, the security trumped. The two countries worked to attempt to facilitate the legitimate cross border activity, while at the same time provide a higher security level across the common boarder. In fact, this has led to rebirth of perimeter security concept, or simply the Fortress North America. The emphasis of perimeter security concept shifts from the cross border protection to the protection of both US and Canada when individuals or goods enter at whichever point into North America (Canada 2011). Harmonization of policies and laws between the two nations will essentially aid in accomplishing this.
The governments of the two countries have accepted the perimeter security concept and have signed Beyond the Borders Agreement that has moved this notion forward. It is worth to mention that a significant progress have been made in advancing the Beyond the Border deal besides implementing a number of perimeter security initiatives. In fact, Canada and United States have signed immigrant agreement, which would let us share Biographic and biometric information at a future date. As part of a North American security perimeter, the two nations are further harmonizing immigration measures and border security (Canadian Broadcast Corporation News 2001).
Arguments for moving towards the Perimeter Security
Some people believe that adoption of the harmonized policies and laws through the security perimeter would facilitate smooth movements between US and Canada besides helping Canadian economy grow. There are various arguments for moving towards the Fortress North America or perimeter security. For one, perimeter security will help to address the threats likely to face the two countries earlier. Addressing the threats or terrorizations at earliest possible point is vital to beefing up the shared security of the two countries in addition to enabling the improvement of free flow of the legitimate people and goods across Canada-US border. The Action plan contained in Beyond the Border will actually support this goal through developing a mutual understanding of threat environment; supporting effective identification of the individuals who pose a danger that will facilitate movement of the legitimate travellers and enhance safety; and help to coordinate as well as align the security systems for cargo, goods, and baggage.
In addition, trade facilitation, economic growth, and creation of employment opportunities is the other argument for moving towards the perimeter security. Free flow of services and goods between Canada and United States creates huge economic benefits for the two countries. As both countries work hard to strengthen security of the shared perimeter, important steps will be taken simultaneously to generate more openness at land border for the legitimate trade in addition to travel. The Action Plan in the Beyond the Border enhances benefits of the programs, which aid the trusted travelers and businesses move efficiently through the border. In addition, it helps to invest in the improvements to the shared border technology and infrastructure (Government of Canada 2011). Moreover, it helps to introduce new measures that will facilitate movement as well as trade through the border while at the same time reducing administrative burden for the businesses.
The other argument for moving towards the perimeter security is that it will improve the enforcement of cross border law. The two countries have already established successful models for stopping criminals from crossing border to escape the justice. For instance, the shiprider program employs the cross-designated officers who help to patrol maritime areas between the two countries. Additionally, the Border Enforcement Security Taskforces and Border Enforcement Teams support the joint investigations as well as law enforcement action between and at entry ports. The Action Plan in Beyond the Boarder moves forward with fresh initiatives, which build on these fruitful law enforcement programs.
Moreover, the perimeter security will enhance resiliency of the shared critical infrastructure as well as cyber security. The two nations are linked by a critical infrastructure- from roads to bridges to cyberspace and energy infrastructure. Through the Fortress North America, the governments of the two countries implemented Canada-United States Action Plan for the critical infrastructure, including through executing programs in addition to developing the joint products to enhancing the cross order critical infrastructure resilience and protection. Besides, the two governments have enhanced the cooperation of tough bilateral cyber security to safeguard vital government as well as the critical digital infrastructure in addition to increasing the ability of both countries to respond effectively and jointly to the cyber incidents. Therefore, this is crucial, as it will continue enabling the two countries rapidly respond to as well as recover from the disasters in addition to the emergencies on each side of the border.
Arguments against moving towards the perimeter security
However, a number of individuals feel that this is violation of the Canadian sovereignty, since the perimeter security would perpetually be required to embrace the American concepts of privacy and security. One of the arguments in contrast to moving towards the perimeter security is that Canada will be trapped inside the Fortress North America (United States and Harper, 2011). Those against the security plan argue that it is high time that Canadians become concerned that military and political leaders involved in the border security talks are likewise discussing massive North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) expansion. They feel that this might leave Canada losing its ability to have an autonomous security policy besides being trapped inside the US dominated” Security Perimeter”
Others argue that the true weakness of Fortress America lies not in how it bows to a drive shackling truth, but in the way in which its collective standards approach fails to cater for diversity of the national security policies between United States, Mexico, and Canada, in addition to the absence of an established definition of threat. Solution would appear apparent, but remains unremarked in official debates of propensity partnership and security (Government of Canada 2009). The apparent solution is essentially to bring the three involved countries together in pursuing to formulate the North American Security Doctrine besides generating a mutual assessment of the shared threats. Thus, according to them such a solution is not directly achievable in near future.
In my opinion there exists no foundation for alarm that perimeter security agreement will put grave limitations on the sovereignty of either of the two countries. This proposal is not meant to make a North American equivalent of Schengen zone of the 25 European nations, inside which there exists no internal borders controls or checkpoints. In addition, I think that Canadian- US border is not to be substituted or eliminated by a North American perimeter; where possible, it is actually to be decongested and streamlined. For that reason, the Canada-United States border agreement is in fact not a blow to the Canadian sovereignty, as a number of critics are suggesting. It is a confirmation of the Canadian independence, since it clearly benefits Canada, its security, and its trade. The truth that it as well benefits United States interests is welcome, but incidental.
Policy Implications
The policy implications of this are that the action plan in Beyond the Border is the most substantial step forward in the cooperation of the two countries since NAFTA (Richardson & Policy Horizons Canada 2011) This action plan provides a better framework for the future North American integration. When implemented fully, this agreement can be updated and expanded. Additionally, the perimeter security pact is vital to improving travel and flow of trade across the border. Canada has made a number of concessions without guarantees that it will minimize border restrictions. The dominant political ideology that is reflected in the perimeter security debate is that Canada will every time be at mercy of whichever new United States securities measure, irrespective of dangers they may pose to the civil liberties and privacy. I do not think that there exists any potential solution, which would satisfy the two sides of this debate.
References
Ackelson, Jason (2009). From Thin to Thick (and Back Again?): The Politics and Polices of the Contemporary US-Canada Border. American Review of Canadian Studies 39, 4 (December): 336–351.
Burt, Michael (2009). Tighter Border Security and Its Effect on Canadian Exports. International Trade and Investment Centre, The Conference Board of Canada (June). <http://www.internationaltransportforum. org/2009/pdf/CDN_TighterBorder.pdf>
Canada. (2011). Perimeter security and economic competitiveness: Action plan: beyond the border, a shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness. Ottawa: Govt. of Canada.
Canadian Broadcast Corporation News (2001, September 19). US Ambassador Calls for North American Perimeter. CBC. Retrieved from <http://www.cbc.canews/canada/story/2001/09/19/immigrat010919.html>
Globerman, Steven, and Paul Storer (2008). The Impacts of 9/11 on Canada-US Trade. University of Toronto Press.
Government of Canada (2009). Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: About SPP. <http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/eic/site/spp-psp.nsf/eng/h_00003.html>
Government of Canada (2011). Border Action Plan: Canada-US Border Cooperation (February). Government of Canada. Retrieved from <http://actionplan.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?mode=preview&pageId=346
United States. Harper, S., & United States. (2011). United States-Canada beyond the border: A shared vision for perimeter security and economic competitiveness.
United States Department of Homeland Security (2002, January 7). Specifics of Secure and Smart Border Action Plan. News release. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0036.shtm
Richardson, K., & Policy Horizons Canada. (2011). Understanding the Canada-US border's impact on the movement of people to support the movement of goods and ideas under and beyond the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Ottawa, Ont: Policy Horizons Canada.
