Say, how's that 2010 North American security perimeter coming along?

Yet another article PR piece telling us how the Canada-US border can become 'wafer thin' again, if only we just agree to get inside the North American security perimeter ...

Canada warms to the idea of a tougher 'perimeter'
reads the Star headline while providing no evidence to support it.

Apparently, however, "the more knowledgeable watchers of the cross-border condition suggest Canadians are ready".
Like the director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, concern-trolling about Canada's pig-headed insistence on remaining Canada :

"Perimeter is no longer a dirty word. It's beginning to come up again, at least in academic circles," says David Biette

... whose 'academic circle' includes fellow University of Calgary academic advisor Robert Pastor, Vice Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations 2005 Task Force on the Future of North America:

"The Task Force's central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter."

Back to Biette in The Star :

"Canada has done so well by NAFTA and we are seeing the emergence of a new generation of more confident, culturally secure Canadians. The old Toronto nationalists of the 1960s were essential to building the idea of a postmodern Canada, but now they're starting to die off."

Nice.

Former US ambassador to Canada Gordon Giffin, whose "one security perimeter" proposal met with a very chilly reception in Canada in 1999, also gets trotted out :

"Those old Canadian worries now sound soooo 20th-century, says Giffin.
"Those old cultural arguments sound like dinosaur-speak today. The world just sort of passed them by," Giffin told the Star.

Whereas by comparison, the deep integration fans are just bristling with fun new ideas.
Here's David Biette in June 2006 :

"Being different from the United States for the sake of being different is irresponsible and an abdication of the national interest. Letting foreign policy be driven by public opinion (particularly when public opinion is an emotional reaction to whatever George W. Bush does) shows a lack of leadership. This was particularly evident in the debate over Canada’s potential participation in ballistic missile defence, something the government had requested before it let the public opinion tail wag the foreign policy dog. If the government changes policies at the whims of public opinion, how reliably will Canada be viewed?"

Let's have that one more time :

"Letting foreign policy be driven by public opinion shows a lack of leadership.
If the government changes policies at the whims of public opinion, how reliably will Canada be viewed?"

Ah, public opinion and all that democracy stuff. Sooooo '20th century'. Sooooo 'dinosaur-speak'.

I'm guessing a militarized NAFTA in the form of a North American security perimeter would be the end of all that whimmy Canadian public input nonsense.

Canada warms to the idea, indeed.

With thanks to West End Bob for the heads up.

SPP : Manufacturing Content

Four collaborating alumni of the Task Force on the Future of North America are duking it out in the pages of the Globe and Mail over how best to hasten North American deep integration. At issue is the inclusion of Mexico, long considered by Team Canada to be a usurper of Canada's rightful pride of place in America's heart.

Team Canada, represented by John Manley and Gordon Giffin : Canada is more special to the US than Mexico.

Team Mexico/US, represented by Andrés Rozental and Robert Pastor : No, you aren't - try harder.

Good thing RevDave is here to guide us safely through the towering clichés and treacherous platitudes.

"Here's how we fix Canada's political mess"

is an article by Preston Manning in today's G&M, in which his advice is to "dissolve the coalition" and "prepare for the next election" to "give Canada the broadly supported majority government it needs in times like these."

But first, let's review some quotes from a book Preston wrote with Mike Harris just last year, published by the Fraser Institute and "guided" by the Montreal Economic Institute, with help from Michael Hart, member of the Task Force on the Future of North America. You can read the whole thing yourself online :

International Leadership by a Canada Strong and Free :

~ Deepening integration with the US economy must be on the agenda as the best way for Canadians to increase our trade, prosperity, and leadership potential.

~For Canada, Mexico’s presence at the NAFTA table is no reason to avoid action on our urgent national interest in pursuing a formal structure to manage irreversible economic and security integration with the United States.

~The 2005 Security and Prosperity Initiative adopted by Prime Minister Martin and President Bush and confirmed by the Harper government a year later laid a promising foundation. Both governments now receive regular status reports on its implementation. The earlier Smart Border Accord gave security and access to the United States a higher priority than before September 11. Both, however, operate within existing laws and policies and are therefore limited in scope. Extracting the full benefit of deeper integration requires a more ambitious initiative.

~ The federal government should revisit the decision not to participate in the Ballistic Missile Defence program

~The central importance of good US-Canada relations to Canada’s interests across virtually every domestic and international issue requires that the federal government make that relationship its highest international priority.

~ In order to facilitate the integrated coordination of their two economies, the two governments need to create a customs union involving a common external tariff, a joint approach to the treatment of third-country goods, a fully integrated energy market, a common approach to trade remedies, and an integrated government procurement regime.

~Government has no place in the decision-making of Canadian consumers, importers, or exporters.

~If Canadians wish to contribute to global peace and security they can only do so effectively as partners with the United States.

~There is much to be said for Canada and the United States developing a North American energy security accord that looks at the best way to develop and distribute the continent’s resources to the benefit of people on both sides of the border.


Thanks, Presto, for coming out so clearly for Steve like this. As his political mentor, I'm sure he appreciates your continued support in today's G&M.

Cross-posted at Creekside

Push polling for deep integration

A mere four days after foisting John Ibbitson's paeon to deep integration on us, the Globe and Mail is at it again, this time reporting on a poll which purports to show that :
"Canadians want Prime Minister Stephen Harper to work more closely with a new U.S. administration" and
"Canadians expect their government to work closely with the U.S. on international problems".
According to the poll, 62% of Canadians would even "adopt American regulatory standards if it would ease restrictions at the border".

As Ibbitson also proclaimed, the reason why this will all be ok is : "Canadians are excited about the prospect of a Barack Obama presidency".
Obama, a fine orator whose speeches move me to tears but whose voting record is thus far still hovering around that of Stephen Harper, is apparently the new deep integration selling point to Canadians.

The G&M refers to the institute which commissioned the poll, the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, merely as a "Calgary-based institute".
Rather more useful would have been the information that CDFAI is a lobby group funded by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and "defence contractor" General Dynamics, beneficiary of millions of dollars in arms contracts due to Canadian participation in the U.S war on terra.

The article also quotes "Colin Robertson, senior fellow with the institute", but fails to mention "he was a member of the team that negotiated the Free Trade Agreement with the United States", information freely available on his CDFAI bio, or that currently Mr. Robertson has been seconded by DFAIT to Carleton University to direct the Canada-US Project, along with fellow continentalist Derek Burney :

Blueprint for Canada-US Engagement under a New Administration
Purpose: To develop a blueprint for a joint Canada-US agenda focused on bilateral and global prosperity and security issues.

Included among its listed "themes" are :

• Canada-US defense cooperation (with US spelling of defence)
• The North American energy-environment nexus
• Cross-border regulatory cooperation
• Scope and issue areas for greater bilateral cooperation in the Americas

Unsurprisingly, these are the same issues addressed in the CDFAI poll, happily reported in the G&M as Canadians, despite their "healthy skepticism of the Americans", nonetheless enthusiastically supporting greater ties.

Thanks, G&M. As CDFAI is holding a one-day conference in Ottawa today - What Does it Mean to Be Good Neighbours? - including Robert Pastor, Vice Chair of the 2005 Task Force on the Future of North America and author of Toward a North American Community, I expect we'll be hearing more of the same from you again quite soon.

Cross-posted at Creekside

Stephen Harper's Big Thingey

John Ibbitson at the G&M has a new big idea :

"This could be Stephen Harper's Big Thing."
"a revolutionary new agreement that would transform both Canada and the U.S., truly launching the continent into the 21st century."
"This is the perfect time to do something big. This is the time for a North American environmental, security and economic accord."

Well, bully for you for finally coming out, John.
After years of pissing about, defending the very jelly bean-ness of the Security and Prosperity Partnership - It's not about deep integration; it's just about efficiency! It's not scary! Oh noes, it's dying because of those whiny nationalists and conspiracy theorists! - you finally get down to it.
And what a great name you have chosen for it - The Big Idea.

Coincidentally, "The Big Idea" was also the name coined by the C.D. Howe Institute in 2002 for their Shaping the Future of the North American Economic Space: A Framework for Action, but I'm sure they'll be happy to hear you want to revive it. Their report, which later resurfaced as "The Task Force on the Future of North America", suggested that Canada could successfully woo the US into deeper integration with us if only we would just join their war on terra and offer them free access to our water and oil.

What? You say your Big Idea proposes that too? :

"Canada should propose a harmonized, universal, continental market, coupled with massive joint investment aimed at reducing the environmental impact of the oil sands, in exchange for guarantees that the U.S. gets all the oil."

All the oil?
Why it seems only yesterday, John, you were complaining that conspiracy theorists were killing the SPP with crazy ideas like that:

"While on the Canadian side, Ms. Barlow maintains that "deep integration," as she likes to call it, is "quite literally about eliminating Canada's ability to determine independent regulatory standards, environmental protections, energy security, foreign, military, immigration and other policies."

And now here you are - recommending those very same ideas yourself as the best way for Steve to consolidate his legacy. And you've got more:

"Let's not stop there. Let's propose a joint security agreement to prescreen goods and people coming into the continent. Let's set a joint tariff.
Let's remove national protections on cultural and financial services."

Because I ask you - what could be better timing for Canada right now than to hitch our wagon to US security agreements and finances?

Congratulations, John. As the only journalist invited to the last SPP leaders' meet-up, you have finally proven your worth to them.
And a big idea shout-out to the G&M too, for having the guts to go public with this. We always knew you had it in you.

Cross-posted at Creekside

The 4th annual North American Forum - it's a very small world.

All you really need to know about the fourth annual North American Forum currently being held in Washington DC is that the phrases "North America" and "our continent" and particularly "our energy resources" outnumber any references to the individual countries involved by about ten to one.

According to its website, the North American Forum is "a community of Canadian, Mexican and American thought leaders, whose purpose is to advance a shared vision of North America."
It is chaired by former US Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, and former Mexican Secretary of Finance Pedro Aspe, who is listed along with ConservaLiberal John Manley as the author of the book "Building a North American Community", the published report of the 2005 Task Force on the Future of North America.
You remember the Task Force : one N.A. resource pact for oil, gas, and fresh water; one passport; one foreign policy; one set of environmental, health, and safety standards; one immigration policy; one security perimeter; a suggested feasibility study on one currency union; and the introduction of a North American brand.

Anyway, before we get to excerpts from the speeches of this year's "thought leaders", here's an 'it's a small small one-perimeter North American world' note :
In his opening preamble, US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte addresses a remark to US Secretary of State George Shultz :

"And I do remember vividly that when I was the Deputy National Security Advisor at the very end of the Reagan Administration, we went down together, I accompanied you, Mr. Secretary, to the inauguration of Carlos Salinas de Gortari as President, not knowing at the time that I would, soon thereafter, become Ambassador and have the opportunity to work so closely with Carla Hills and others, Pedro Aspe, Andres Rosenthal, on the construction of the North American Free Trade Agreement."

But Hills, Aspe, and Rosenthal didn't just work together on NAFTA; they were also contributing members of the Task Force on the Future of North America report, aka "Building a North American Community". Carla A. Hills was also Vice Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations at the time, and it was CFR and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives who commissioned the Task Force.At the end of his speech, Negroponte takes questions from the floor : one comes from Carla Hills, another from Rosenthal.

Ok, on to the "thought leaders"!

US Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates :"We cannot achieve resilience or reach our full potential without security. This is tremendously important, given the kind of threats the North American continent faces at the dawn of the 21st century."
Gates praised Canada for its steadfast contribution to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and the new Canada-U.S. Civil Assistance Plan which will enable Canada and U.S. militaries to support the armed forces of the other country during a civil emergency.
"The role of Afghanistan in the 9/11 attacks reminds us that this is no hypothetical scenario. We fight there now and in other distant lands to prevent another attack here at home.

"US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte :"The North American community has made our peoples richer, our countries safer, and our region more competitive. There is much left to do to ease our citizens’ anxieties, but we must make clear that in a world that rewards integration and openness, the surest path to greater prosperity, security, and sovereignty is the North American partnership."

U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman :"North America is critical to determining the path forward for global energy development, delivery and consumption.
In many ways, our collective success in shaping that future in a productive way will depend on our ability to come together and expand our regional cooperation in order to encourage the sustained investment in all energy resources - and in our energy infrastructure - that must occur on our shared continent.
We will become more reliant on safe and emissions-free nuclear power.
That is why President Bush has put such a priority on working with our partners in North America to establish reliable, productive, and cooperative mechanisms to improve our continent's energy security.
Experts from each of our three nations continue to work on a projection of North American supply and demand for oil and gas, electricity, and coal, as well as continental import and exports.
Just last week we hosted with the State Department this year's U.S.-Canada Energy Consultative Meetings at which our two nations discussed strengthened cooperation in areas including oil sands, natural gas pipelines, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power.

Let me just mention that, in regard to nuclear power, it is estimated that Canada has about 10 percent of the world's uranium reserves. Access to this vital supply will be indispensable to meeting increased demand for nuclear fuel on this continent.
We also will continue to work with Canada on developing and building our shared energy infrastructure - and let me say here that the United States government remains strongly committed to expediting the siting, permitting and construction of the pipelines that will help North America take advantage of our own natural resources."


Gosh, is that old "North American brand" idea coming across clearly enough here?
Pathetic really, isn't it? Not two new ideas to rub together since their Task Force.

One last note : Remember all those newspaper articles a short while back from professional Canada slagger Michael Hart? I had forgotten until I looked up the names of the members of the Task Force that he was one of them. The book is available online here.

SPP : Back to school edition

Hey teachers! Having trouble finding course materials that rebrand Canada as part of the North American Union?

Arizona State University is your one-stop go-to resource to find everything you need to - what was that happy phrase the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America used again? oh yeah - "to launch an educational project to teach the idea of a shared NA identity in schools".

Just look at these handy course materials :

Teaching Modules: Backgrounders and Cases
Building North America Into Your Course
North American Economic Integration: General Overview
Analyzing North American Integration
Managing North America
North American Structures and ¨Sites¨of Integration
Continental Strategies of Selected North American Companies

Now I know what you're thinking : That it will all be written from a US point-of-view. Not so at all. They've got lots of Canadians on their link roster : Fraser Institute, C.D. Howe Institute, I.Asper School of Management. Plus there's papers on many now-familiar integration projects : Atlantica, PNWER, North America’s Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO).

Here's just a sample from a "teaching module" written by George Haynal, "Senior Fellow at the Norman Patterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, Ottawa-based vice president of public policy at Bombardier, Inc., and a former Canadian consulgeneral in New York" :

"The Next Plateau in North America- What's the Big Idea? Mapping the North American Reality" :

"The obligation to defend the North American landmass has become far more complicated now but defending ourselves and defending space that we share in North America still constitutes one inseparable set of obligations for both our countries. So we had better face up to the need not only to defend our territory but also to do it in a way that also constitutes a satisfactory contribution to
the defence of the United States."

"We must ensure that the critical infrastructure that serves us and which we share with the United States is protected against threats from terrorism or criminality. North American security is a joint need; it should be supplied as a common enterprise."

and in a section on Canadian companies (bold - mine):

"Ownership rules intended to ensure that owners were obliged to be "patriots" seem almost quaintly archaic at a time when multiple citizenship is so available, including to global investors."

You'll recognize some other familiar faces at the Arizona State U site as well.

Stephen Blank guided the Montreal-based North American Forum on Integration for Canadian, US, and Mexican students up here in April; while Robert Pastor, author of Toward a North American Community, was Vice Chair of The Task Force on the Future of North America and, yes, author of the concept : "to launch an educational project to teach the idea of a shared NA identity in schools".

Get 'em while they're young, I always say.

H/T to ToeDancer at Bread and Roses for the Arizona State U. link

(Cross-posted at Creekside)