The following was written by John Manley, a former deputy prime minister and counterpart to the U.S. secretary of homeland security, and Gordon Giffin, a former U.S. ambassador to Canada, for today’s edition of “globeandmail.com”.
Canada and the U.S. share a special long-standing relationship that doesn’t include Mexico
We read with interest the recent column by our friends Robert Pastor and Andrés Rozental in these pages recently. We, too, believe that the North American free trade agreement has been an enormous success and a boon to the economies of each country. We do not, however, agree that the trilateral framework suggested by NAFTA should be automatically transferred to all aspects of North American relations. To the contrary, as two people who have been at the core of the management of the Canada-U.S. dynamic, we respectfully disagree.
Our friends seem skeptical that Canada and the United States share a “special relationship.” We assert that this is a unique bilateral relationship, a model in international relations built over many decades based upon similar values and democratic institutions and common heritage.
While geography makes us neighbours, it is neither the sole nor the dominant determinant for policy development. In fact, this relationship is amplified in our global partnership. We are two of the oldest democracies on Earth. We were partners in liberating Europe in the Second World War. Together, we confronted communism during the Cold War, assuring our mutual defence as partners with Europe in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and with one another in the North American Aerospace Defence Command. We built prosperous economies with the joint construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway in the 1950s and the 1965 auto pact, followed in 1989 by the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. Today, our young men and women are fighting and dying together in Afghanistan.
By contrast, the trilateral relationship began with NAFTA in 1994. It is an economic arrangement with none of the deep historical and other connotations of the Canada-U.S. partnership. While the United States does have two borders, the similarity ends at that statement. It is more than 70 years since president Franklin D. Roosevelt declared the Canada-U.S. border to be the longest undefended border in the world. Under no logic does it follow that the U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico should be treated identically. Very simply, the issues for U.S. policy-makers are different on the two borders. In the south, concern with illegal immigration is a predominant one. Only to a very minor degree is illegal immigration a problem on the northern border, and to the extent it does concern policy-makers, it is a concern shared both ways.
Prof. Pastor, of American University in Washington, and Mr. Rozental, of the Brookings Institution, describe the aftermath of 9/11 as a lost opportunity for trilateral partnership when Canada negotiated the Smart Border Accord with the United States (conceived, negotiated and signed in less than three months).
But even there, the differences are striking. After 9/11, more than 250 U.S.-bound aircraft and their passengers found themselves welcomed in Canada, and more than 100,000 Canadians made their way to Parliament Hill in Ottawa for the world’s largest tribute to the 9/11 victims. A few weeks later, Canadian soldiers were fighting with their American counterparts in Afghanistan. In contrast, Mexican attitudes at the time were quite different.
Furthermore, Canadian and U.S. police and intelligence forces already collaborate in unique ways and many of our people commonly cross our border (or at least wish to do so) as if it were a neighbourhood intersection.
In fact, the Smart Border Accord was an opportunity that would have been lost had it been bogged down in three-way discussions. And let’s not forget that NAFTA itself was simply a follow-on to the Canada-U.S. FTA.
While the borders and many of the policy opportunities are very different, there are some points upon which we agree with our friends. As the world becomes more and more interdependent, those who have a shared perspective and common interests need to be close collaborators in dealing with issues such as the environment, international financial regulation and reform of international institutions.
We and our two friends all collaborated on an important study for the Council on Foreign Relations that advocated advancing the concept of a North American Community, a vision we continue to share. But such a goal can be achieved only if Canada and the United States define a new and evolutionary template for our bilateral progress. It will take that anchor in the northern part of the continent to make continentwide progress possible.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership is a trilateral framework established in 2006. Few would cite this as a formula for progress. In fact, if the two borders are dysfunctional, as our friends suggest, it is evidence of the difficulty in making progress with three parties at the table, rather than two.
And while U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano did say we have to recognize that the northern border is a “real border,” she did not say the two borders must be treated alike. She said there “needs to be some level of parity between the two borders,” which is her way of saying people from her part of the country should not feel they will be treated unreasonably harshly.
Importantly, she then went on to distinguish the way U.S. authorities are collaborating with Canada, including in law enforcement, and she pointed out that the enormous volumes of trade must be considered. The point is: She did not assert that there were no differences, but that both are legal borders and we cannot ignore that we have one in the north.
Many of the challenges faced by Mexico must be taken seriously by Canada and the United States. However, that would suggest the need for a collaborative development program initiated by Canada and the United States to assist Mexico in meeting those challenges. It does not mean that we are at a point where all North American policies and issues can be “trilateralized.” The three economies and societies are not at relative parity.
If the concept of a real North American Community is ever going to be realized, it will be because leadership has been shown by the northern partners.
