Canada-U.S. border security and post-9/11 policy evolution

Canada-U.S. Relations

For the Canadian public, the United States is widely perceived as an intrusive, aggressive, and increasingly reactionary bully. For the Canadian Government, the United States is perceived more as a force of nature, an absolute global hegemon providing stability and promoting prosperity, whose needs must be met even at the cost of Canadian national pride. This view was particularly evident during the 2004-2008 period when the two countries were led by Conservatives, who readily acquiesce to the rules of naked power. However, Canadian Liberals are willing to defy American demands at times, although never to the point of recklessness. This applies even if the U.S. president is a Democrat, as President Obama has discovered.

While the recession and terrorism limit the President's discretion on the issues of economic protectionism and border security, President Obama does have latitude in the area of foreign policy and is exercising his discretion in that area to the improvement of Canada-U.S. relations.

Current Status of Major Issues

Border Security Issues

The United States and Canada have perhaps the most demilitarized border security system in the world. Most countries will erect unmistakeable physical barriers and/or place armed officers to stand guard and patrol the border. However, the 5,525-mile-long United States-Canada border has no walls or barriers to prevent crossings and is undefended by any military force.

Although there are no military officers guarding the border, there are many civilian law enforcement officers guarding the borders to detect smuggling, illegal immigration, and people not allowed to leave/enter either country. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the border security system was criticized because of false accusations that some of the 9/11 terrorists came into the United States from Canada without detection.

These accusations were revealed to be false but the government scrutiny had already begun and both countries took measures to tighten border security with the Canada-United States Smart Border Declaration of 2001.

The Smart Border agreement had information-sharing measures which gave each government the right to confidential or privileged information held by the other government.

The Governments also used the Smart Border Agreement to address the long-standing problem of smuggling between the two countries. Traditionally, drugs such as cannabis and MDMA are smuggled into the U.S. from Canada while firearms and drugs such as crystal meth are smuggled into Canada from the U.S. The Smart Border Agreement required imposed additional compliance steps in the detection, confiscation, inspection, and transfer of illegal goods.

Although the Smart Border Agreement operated without major disruption or terrorist activity in the United States for almost a decade, the United States has asked for greater authority and control over Canadian border security and immigration controls. The countries are currently negotiating an agreement titled "Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Competitiveness," to build a security perimeter that protects both countries from threats such as terrorism.

In return for this concession, the U.S. would relax controls at the border, thereby reducing congestion and increasing the flow of two-way trade.

If the agreement is ratified, Canadian citizens could perceive it as a violation of the privacy rights of Canadian residents as well as an intrusion on the sovereignty of the Canadian Government by a foreign country. They would also be livid at the Canadian Government for bartering the country's sovereignty in exchange for shorter queues at the border crossing and the privilege of bringing new products across the border.

Foreign Policy Issues

Although Canada has been a reliable political ally throughout the 20th Century, it has declined to follow the American lead when it feels that the U.S. is determining its foreign policy for it. For example, Canada lifted the political and economic embargo on Cuba decades ago and has become Cuba's third-largest trading partner.

Canada, as did most other U.S. allies, had no conflict with Cuba and only imposed the embargo because of pressure from the U.S. during the Cold War.

Canada prefers a multilateral approach in foreign conflicts while the United States is always prepared to handle foreign conflicts unilaterally. The U.S., however, is usually prudent enough to seek multilateral support and has come to rely on Canada as the first major piece of a multi-nation alliance. However, Canada is beginning to place formal multilateralism principles over traditional loyalty to the U.S., insisting on United Nations approval of military actions before it will commit its support to that action. It has declined participation in the Vietnam War and the Iraq War for this reason.

Military Cooperation Issues

Canada and the U.S. are both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ("NATO"), mutual defense treaty organization. They are also signatories of the North American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement ("NORAD"), a continental air defense treaty which monitors the airspace of all signatories and provides for co-development of aerospace technologies.

Thus, the two countries have treaty obligations to keep them aligned in addition to their natural affinities as G8 Western Democracies. Even so, Canada has recently refused to participate in Missile Defense exercises which the U.S. planned according to the provisions of NORAD.

Canada maintains an active role in international peacekeeping operations. It has sent peacekeeping troops to Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East. In fact, Canada was one of the first countries to offer its support to the United States in its invasion of Afghanistan and Canadian troops are still fighting there. Even with these military activities, Canada only spends 2% of GDP on defense, lower than every country in NATO except Luxembourg and Iceland. Canada's miniscule budget spending has been a source of annoyance for the United States, who believe that Canada is free-riding off the good grace of the United States, which spends 30% of GDP on defense.

For U.S. leaders, the disproportionate military burden is particularly infuriating when Canada refuses a U.S. request to send troops or support to a military action. In 2003, Canada initially agreed to join the "Coalition of the Willing" in the invasion of Iraq provided the United Nations officially sanction the military action. When the United States decided to forego U.N. approval and proceeded with the invasion, Canada considered its prior agreement void and refused to join the "Coalition of the Willing." This position placed Canada in the anti-American camp with France, instead of the traditional junior ally role, akin to that of Great Britain during the invasion.

Energy Security Issues

Canada is the biggest source of imported crude oil for the United States and crucial to stable energy prices in the United States. Canada's remaining oil reserves, second in size only to Saudi Arabia, are a key component in the U.S. energy security calculations.

There seems to be a tacit understanding that the United States will have the priority over all others in buy crude oil from Canada.

To facilitate future transfers of crude oil, the U.S. is expanding infrastructure to produce, upgrade, refine, and transport oil from Canada to the United States. More than half of Canada's remaining recoverable oil reserves are heavy oil reserves embedded in sand. This type of crude oil requires an expensive, environmentally harmful extraction process, so the United States will have to build special refineries to handle them.

To further complicate the process, Canadian lobbying groups are insisting that some or all of the crude oil is processed in Canada before being transported to the United States. Increased refining operations could create thousands of new jobs in Canada, which is likely to gain popular support. It is already understood that any infrastructure built in either country can only be built by American oil companies themselves. Thus, Canada is aiming to receive free oil refining infrastructure for its cumbersome heavy oil reserves and eventually selling the Canadian-refined oil to the United States at a higher rate than it would have gotten for mere crude oil.

U.S. energy demands have created another potential conflict between American and Canadian interests. American companies are currently developing a natural gas pipeline through from Alaska, through Canada, in into the United States. However, Canada is developing a similar natural gas pipeline to the United States. There are concerns that two natural gas pipelines are expensive and that there will not be sufficient building materials available in the areas through which the pipeline is to be built.

Canada is sovereign over much of the pipelines' paths so it is probable that it will give preference to the Canadian pipeline should building supplies become limited.

Near-Term Direction of U.S.-Canada Relations

In the next few years, economic issues will be paramount as Canada and the U.S. continue their economic recoveries. The U.S. efforts at economic recovery will drive U.S.-Canada relations more than any other reason.

To help employers offset the cost of doing business in the U.S., labor regulations (i.e. minimum-wage, health-care, and labor unions) have been relaxed by both the Federal government and State governments to give employers more latitude in setting wages.

Governments have also actively subsidized industrial firms, in the form of low-interest loans, tax breaks/incentives, and infrastructure development.

Most controversially, (at least from an international perspective) the Federal Government has implemented trade protectionism measures in the form of increased customs duties, import quotas, and product safety requirements to inhibit the flow of foreign products into the United States.

The U.S. is seemingly willing to take any measures necessary to revive its economic infrastructure, thereby reducing unemployment and reducing its balance of payments deficits. Much of U.S. attention in this area will be focused on China and the more discriminatory practices of trade protectionism will appear in product categories at which China excels. U.S. protectionism can spill over to Canada because Canada competes in some of the same product categories as China. Thus, for the immediate future, Canada and the United States will continue to have conflicts over American protectionism, but since the protectionism is really aimed at Asian economies, Canada will likely be able to obtain exceptions and waivers for its products as it did with the "Buy America" provisions.

American anxiety over national security will continue to control Border Security issues because Al-Qaeda is still at large. This means that the U.S. will remain aggressive over Border Security issues until the Terrorism threat is resolved in the perception of the American public. For Canada, this means a continued loss of sovereignty and forced participation in American security and law enforcement efforts.

The Effect of the Obama Administration

The American failure in Iraq and the false intelligence grounding the decision to invade is vindication for Canada, who refused on the grounds that the United Nations did not find sufficient evidence to sanction the invasion. Obama took advantage of these trends by pulling out of Iraq and has shifted the focus to Afghanistan, the nation Canada volunteered to invade with the U.S. back in 2001. Although Canada is scheduled to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2011, this will not be perceived as premature as one decade of military assistance from Canada is more than reasonable for the purposes of finding Osama Bin Laden and eradicating Al-Qaeda.