(This article was originally written in 2001)
U.S. President George W. Bush has issued a directive ordering U.S. officials to work for the creation of a continental security perimeter with Canada. On this side of the border a powerful lobby, including Paul Cellucci, the U.S. Ambassador, the premiers of Ontario, British Columbia and New Brunswick and the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada, headed by Perrin Beatty, has been pressuring Ottawa to move in the same direction.
Since the attacks on September 11, the U.S. government has announced plans to treble the number of officers at customs posts on the northern border to about 5000. Given the priority now accorded to national security south of the border, it is inconceivable that this important step is going to be revoked anytime soon. In fact, once in place, the new officers should permit the opening of more customs booths at the border and the speeding up of traffic from Canada into the U.S.
Canadians should reject the perimeter concept. It risks an unacceptable loss of Canadian sovereignty and brings with it no guarantee that the U.S. will ease the security it now plans at the border. Instead we ought to take practical steps to meet Canadian and U.S. security needs so that border crossings can be as timely as possible for commercial and personal traffic. Here are some steps we can take and pitfalls we ought to avoid in pursuit of that goal.
* Canada has to respond to lessons learned in the Ahmed Ressam case, in particular the need for greater communication among CSIS, the Department of Immigration and police at all levels. Ressam, who attempted to cross the border into the U.S. in December 1999 with a bomb he intended to detonate at Los Angeles International Airport, could have been apprehended earlier had Canadian authorities shared the information they had.
* Communication and information sharing should be enhanced between Canada and U.S. Customs and between Canadian and U.S. police forces. There are already pilot projects for this: the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET) that operates between B.C. and Washington State, and a similar east coast project.
* A few crucial border crossing points---Surrey B.C.-Blaine, Washington (south of Vancouver), Windsor-Detroit (tunnel and bridge), Sarnia-Port Huron, Buffalo-Fort Erie, and at Niagara Falls---account for nearly three quarters of crossings. These points require major new infrastructure investment on both sides of the border----more lanes, in some cases new bridges. This would allow more use of lanes dedicated to frequent commercial and passenger users.
Traffic, although still below the levels prior to September 11, is no longer frequently congested as it was in the first days after the attacks. AUTOPASS, a program to speed up the passage of people who frequently drive from Canada to the U.S., has been suspended until further notice by the U.S. government. In addition, commercial traffic has slowed as U.S. Customs spends more time searching trucks entering the U.S. As a U.S. Customs official in Washington D.C. told me, the U.S. remains on a "level one, code red alert" and U.S. Customs is "checking everything" coming across the border from Canada. (Despite this, traffic delays from Canada to the U.S. are now much less severe than in the first days after the attacks. On its website, Canada Customs posts frequent updates of the border wait times for commercial traffic and travelers entering and leaving Canada at the nineteen most important border crossing points. Most points are delay free most of the time. The worst cases have been the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel and bridge and Surrey B.C.-Blaine Washington with delays of fifteen to forty-five minutes or even longer some of the time.)
Canada needs to work with the U.S. to re-establish and enhance the programs that were in effect at the border prior to September 11. Following background checks, agreed on by both Canada and the U.S., to determine that the frequent users are low security risks, drivers could again be issued with photo ID cards and decals for vehicle windshields.
* Key industries, which account for the overwhelming bulk of our exports---the auto industry (assembly and parts), steel, chemicals, fabricated materials and forest products---should be singled out for special attention to ensure efficient border crossings. Canada has a vital interest in working this out, but so does the U.S. Over fifty per cent of Canadian exports to the U.S. are made by the subsidiaries of U.S. owned companies.
* We need to consider the advantages of a Frontier in Depth. By establishing an enhanced police and security presence within ten kilometers of major border crossing points, it should be possible to put less pressure on the border itself. This is one area where we can definitely learn from the Europeans, who operate a system of spot checks in areas near frontiers.
* Ontario Premier Mike Harris recently said we should work out an EU style border arrangement with the U.S. But an EU approach will not work, because among EU countries the opening of borders was the culmination of agreements to pool sovereignty taken over several decades. Before borders were opened, there were steps to enhance trade, create common political and judicial structures, establish an EU citizenship and passport, and enshrine the right of EU citizens to migrate freely to work and live in any EU country. The U.S. has no appetite whatsoever for a pooling of sovereignty with Canada, through the creation of common North American governing structures. The U.S. ambassador has said the U.S. does not want an EU type of approach with Canada.
* Canada should reject the idea of having joint teams of American and Canadian Customs officials at key entry points into North America. Canada should refuse to harmonize its immigration, refugee and visa policies with those of the U.S. Harmonization would weaken our ability to pursue our own policies toward the rest of the world. An obvious example of a potential negative consequence: under harmonized rules Canadians could lose their right to travel to Cuba.
In all of this, let’s not forget that Canada has its own security concerns. The U.S. has an enormous number of illegal immigrants---estimates run as high as eleven million people---immensely higher than the proportional number of illegal immigrants and unaccounted for refugees in Canada. Canada has to be concerned about the importation of guns into Canada---since September 11 there has been a huge increase in gun purchases in the U.S. Canada also needs to have the capacity to interdict illegal movements of toxic waste and explosives from south of the border.
Ottawa should guard against the temptation to trade off civil liberties in Canada to convince the Bush administration of the virtues of our security regime. The anti-terrorism act recently introduced in the House of Commons by Justice Minister Anne McLellan leans dangerously in the direction of such a trade off. Despite the minister’s statements to the contrary, the act’s definition of terrorism is so broad that it risks being used in future to curtail legal strikes and lawful protests.
In sum, Canada must retain control of its security, territory and its ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. Fighting terrorism involves much more than military action and enhanced security. It rests, in the end, on helping to create a world in which resources and wealth are much more equitably shared, in which peoples have control over their own affairs and are not reduced to pawns in geo-political and resource struggles. Canada needs to retain its capacity to act on these propositions, something that could frequently put us at odds with the U.S.
U.S. President George W. Bush has issued a directive ordering U.S. officials to work for the creation of a continental security perimeter with Canada. On this side of the border a powerful lobby, including Paul Cellucci, the U.S. Ambassador, the premiers of Ontario, British Columbia and New Brunswick and the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters of Canada, headed by Perrin Beatty, has been pressuring Ottawa to move in the same direction.
Since the attacks on September 11, the U.S. government has announced plans to treble the number of officers at customs posts on the northern border to about 5000. Given the priority now accorded to national security south of the border, it is inconceivable that this important step is going to be revoked anytime soon. In fact, once in place, the new officers should permit the opening of more customs booths at the border and the speeding up of traffic from Canada into the U.S.
Canadians should reject the perimeter concept. It risks an unacceptable loss of Canadian sovereignty and brings with it no guarantee that the U.S. will ease the security it now plans at the border. Instead we ought to take practical steps to meet Canadian and U.S. security needs so that border crossings can be as timely as possible for commercial and personal traffic. Here are some steps we can take and pitfalls we ought to avoid in pursuit of that goal.
* Canada has to respond to lessons learned in the Ahmed Ressam case, in particular the need for greater communication among CSIS, the Department of Immigration and police at all levels. Ressam, who attempted to cross the border into the U.S. in December 1999 with a bomb he intended to detonate at Los Angeles International Airport, could have been apprehended earlier had Canadian authorities shared the information they had.
* Communication and information sharing should be enhanced between Canada and U.S. Customs and between Canadian and U.S. police forces. There are already pilot projects for this: the Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET) that operates between B.C. and Washington State, and a similar east coast project.
* A few crucial border crossing points---Surrey B.C.-Blaine, Washington (south of Vancouver), Windsor-Detroit (tunnel and bridge), Sarnia-Port Huron, Buffalo-Fort Erie, and at Niagara Falls---account for nearly three quarters of crossings. These points require major new infrastructure investment on both sides of the border----more lanes, in some cases new bridges. This would allow more use of lanes dedicated to frequent commercial and passenger users.
Traffic, although still below the levels prior to September 11, is no longer frequently congested as it was in the first days after the attacks. AUTOPASS, a program to speed up the passage of people who frequently drive from Canada to the U.S., has been suspended until further notice by the U.S. government. In addition, commercial traffic has slowed as U.S. Customs spends more time searching trucks entering the U.S. As a U.S. Customs official in Washington D.C. told me, the U.S. remains on a "level one, code red alert" and U.S. Customs is "checking everything" coming across the border from Canada. (Despite this, traffic delays from Canada to the U.S. are now much less severe than in the first days after the attacks. On its website, Canada Customs posts frequent updates of the border wait times for commercial traffic and travelers entering and leaving Canada at the nineteen most important border crossing points. Most points are delay free most of the time. The worst cases have been the Windsor-Detroit Tunnel and bridge and Surrey B.C.-Blaine Washington with delays of fifteen to forty-five minutes or even longer some of the time.)
Canada needs to work with the U.S. to re-establish and enhance the programs that were in effect at the border prior to September 11. Following background checks, agreed on by both Canada and the U.S., to determine that the frequent users are low security risks, drivers could again be issued with photo ID cards and decals for vehicle windshields.
* Key industries, which account for the overwhelming bulk of our exports---the auto industry (assembly and parts), steel, chemicals, fabricated materials and forest products---should be singled out for special attention to ensure efficient border crossings. Canada has a vital interest in working this out, but so does the U.S. Over fifty per cent of Canadian exports to the U.S. are made by the subsidiaries of U.S. owned companies.
* We need to consider the advantages of a Frontier in Depth. By establishing an enhanced police and security presence within ten kilometers of major border crossing points, it should be possible to put less pressure on the border itself. This is one area where we can definitely learn from the Europeans, who operate a system of spot checks in areas near frontiers.
* Ontario Premier Mike Harris recently said we should work out an EU style border arrangement with the U.S. But an EU approach will not work, because among EU countries the opening of borders was the culmination of agreements to pool sovereignty taken over several decades. Before borders were opened, there were steps to enhance trade, create common political and judicial structures, establish an EU citizenship and passport, and enshrine the right of EU citizens to migrate freely to work and live in any EU country. The U.S. has no appetite whatsoever for a pooling of sovereignty with Canada, through the creation of common North American governing structures. The U.S. ambassador has said the U.S. does not want an EU type of approach with Canada.
* Canada should reject the idea of having joint teams of American and Canadian Customs officials at key entry points into North America. Canada should refuse to harmonize its immigration, refugee and visa policies with those of the U.S. Harmonization would weaken our ability to pursue our own policies toward the rest of the world. An obvious example of a potential negative consequence: under harmonized rules Canadians could lose their right to travel to Cuba.
In all of this, let’s not forget that Canada has its own security concerns. The U.S. has an enormous number of illegal immigrants---estimates run as high as eleven million people---immensely higher than the proportional number of illegal immigrants and unaccounted for refugees in Canada. Canada has to be concerned about the importation of guns into Canada---since September 11 there has been a huge increase in gun purchases in the U.S. Canada also needs to have the capacity to interdict illegal movements of toxic waste and explosives from south of the border.
Ottawa should guard against the temptation to trade off civil liberties in Canada to convince the Bush administration of the virtues of our security regime. The anti-terrorism act recently introduced in the House of Commons by Justice Minister Anne McLellan leans dangerously in the direction of such a trade off. Despite the minister’s statements to the contrary, the act’s definition of terrorism is so broad that it risks being used in future to curtail legal strikes and lawful protests.
In sum, Canada must retain control of its security, territory and its ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. Fighting terrorism involves much more than military action and enhanced security. It rests, in the end, on helping to create a world in which resources and wealth are much more equitably shared, in which peoples have control over their own affairs and are not reduced to pawns in geo-political and resource struggles. Canada needs to retain its capacity to act on these propositions, something that could frequently put us at odds with the U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment