Search

Despite renewed interest in international security cooperation after 9-11, security coordination between Mexico, Canada and the United States has been limited. Lack of policy coordination between these three countries is no surprise. They all have developed different security doctrines and practices that are not likely to be changed in the near future. Hence, this paper will analyze the security policies of three North American countries from the end of World War II to the September 11 attacks. Post-World War II analysis will allow me to analyze how structural conditions regarding bipolarity interacted with the domestic conditions of each country. The second period to be analyzed, pre-September 11, will illustrate how structural changes are not immediately translated into new security doctrines, at least not in the near future. Policy adaptation tends to be slow and not always progressive. This paper will be structured in five sections. The first three sections will examine each country’s security doctrines during the Cold War period, focusing on the interaction between international and domestic politics. The fourth section will compare and contrast how each country reacted differently vis-à-vis the end of the Cold War. Finally, the last section will evaluate the implications of these findings and its impact on North American security cooperation. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States and Canada share many concerns that fall under the responsibility of the armed forces. This paper will assert that U.S.-Canadian military cooperation often is, at best, taken for granted yet it is critical in providing for the defense and security needs of both countries. The necessity for joint approaches to security concerns lies beyond geographical necessity. Specifically, the paper will examine cooperative military efforts with regard to NORAD and missile defenses during the Harper/Bush era. The argument to be made is that such issues should receive greater attention by American scholars, students and practicioners of foreign policy and security studies. Attention is directed toward how this might be done more effectively in the future. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

September 11 served as a wake-up call to both Canadian and Mexican decision makers. It dramatically reminded leaders in both countries that when the U.S. worries about security, so must its closest trading partners. In the hours following the terrorist attacks, the United States shut down its borders with Canada and Mexico essentially imposing an embargo on the North American continent in the name of national security. Canadian and Mexican leaders understandably panicked, not because of the terrorist attacks per se, but rather because of the impact that the September 11 events had had and would continue to have on their relations with the United States. The most significant changes now being discussed involves the way goods, services and people cross the shared continental borders. The United States has called for increased trilateral and bilateral cooperation in these areas, suggesting that the three NAFTA partners should deepen security cooperation by establishing formal continental and border security mechanisms. Canada and Mexico really have no choice in the matter; both countries must comply or else suffer the economic and political consequences of a United States now worried for its own territorial security. That much should not surprise anyone. What is odd however is how Canadian and Mexican decision makers have reacted. Canada and Mexico seem to be standing on literal and proverbial opposite sides of the continental and border security fence. Mexico, with a strong political and cultural tradition of independence in the making of foreign security policy has accepted and even encouraged the development of trilateral mechanisms while Canadian decision makers - at the helm of a country that prides its historical participation in multilateral security cooperation - has been particularly aloof, arguing that border differences in North America necessitate a bilateral rather than trilateral approach to continental security. The paper examines and explains this divergence in Canadian and Mexican foreign policy and serves as an interesting case study into how and why states dramatically shift their foreign policy orientations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the melting ice in the Great North seems to suggest possible future development of the North American Arctic in relation to potential new shipping routes, the extraction of oil and natural gas and the growth of tourism; it also brings with it new inconvenient realities for the governments of both Canada and the United States. Both Ottawa and Washington have been forced to confront a growing list of concerns brought about by an increasingly internationalized Arctic. For over forty years now, the United States and Canada have established extensive bilateral cooperation in the region by avoiding the unresolved question of who controls the waters of the Northwest Passage and the Canadian Archipelago. Now with the reality of polar warming this question can no longer be avoided. The paper raises the question of whether the existing character of U.S.-Canadian relations will be significantly altered by the melting of Arctic ice. The North is "different" today and will continue to change in the years to come. Accordingly, it seems to be an appropriate time for the two countries to carefully consider their individual and joint interests in the Arctic as they relate to issues of security, environmental protection, scientific research and social inquiry. It may be an appropriate time to develop a renewed Canadian-U.S. common strategy in the North. Today, the inconvenience brought about by the melting of polar ice might actually form the basis for resolving outstanding issues between the two countries. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The events of September 11, 2001 sparked an interest in strengthening security cooperation between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Indeed, the launch of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) by the three NAFTA partners in March 2005 was in part a response to the new security dimensions induced by 9/11. The SPP is the new framework introduced by the three countries to deepen cooperation on common issues of concern. To this end, the SPP includes a number of security related initiatives meant to protect North America from threats both internally and externally (Report to Leaders, 2005). Curiously, the SPP does not contain much prima facia, on defence matters and is mostly security oriented. However, there exists some evidence to suggest that although limited, and often operating below the public radar screen there has been some movement on defence cooperation between the three countries. Canada and Mexico are especially active in forging a bilateral defence relationship which the US views as useful for the broader North American context. How has defence cooperation evolved in North America in the post 9/11 context? What are the prospects for the creation of a North American security regime? What are the implications for governance in North America? This paper will explore these questions and argue that we are witnessing the emergence of defence cooperation but not in the form of a formal international security regime. Rather, defence cooperation is becoming institutionalized gradually in North America but in a covert fashion, away from the public eye and without transparency and accountability. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to discuss the impact of the recent Canadian statements on national security and foreign policy on the cooperation in the field of non-military security between Canada and the United States of America. We will start by analyzing comparatively the new statement from april 2005 and the former White Book from 1995 and than we will try to see what changes have already been made on the ground - at Canada-US border for instance - and what could be the consequences at mid- and long-term. A research variable will be the question of Canadian values, which are partially common and partially different from the US ones. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to make the Canada-US border safer for legitimate travel of persons and goods while more secure have led to increasing tensions within Canada and between Canada and the United States. This paper examines the dynamics of compromise and coordination in areas of intelligence, technology, and procedures. From the Canadian perspective, negotiating in an asymmetric environment in terms of resources and threat perception has led to an American-driven frontier regime, which does not penetrate deeply into other areas of Canadian policy. I contrast the solution in areas of police/military cooperation, intelligence and information sharing, and documentation standards with the lack of coordinated visa, asylum, and refugee policies. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Canada-United States relation is one of the most elaborated one in the world. It is also one of the most peaceful. Yet that does not imply that it does not experiment tensions from time to time. Either in the field of international trade or even of security, both countries have known divergences of views and opposition.We are illustrating and trying to explain these divergences in studying comparatively such cases as Irak, softwood lumber dispute, and environment. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article demonstrates the relationships between Canada and the U.S. which have been structured around interdependence and autonomy. Types of structural factors of the foreign policy are political-strategic, economical and psycho-cultural. Stages in the Canadian antiterrorist action are also discussed, including a period when the foreign policy prevails over domestic issues in the activity of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. An overview of the Canadian National Security Policy is provided.

International treaties are generally negotiated and signed by national bureaucracies. This simple fact has wider implications for our study of international cooperation than scholars have previously recognized. National bureaucracies also negotiate agreements?such as memoranda of understanding?with one another. Despite being governed by a single domestic legal system in theory, implementation and enforcement of these domestic agreements are essentially political, and agencies . The US Departments of Interior and Agriculture, for example, do not sue each other over violations of any agreement, and only rarely refer disputes to a higher political level (the President). In short, cooperation between two agencies presents essentially the same problem whether these agencies are found in different countries or in the same country. This similarity is generally overlooked because the issues over which agencies negotiate often differ?defense and trade policy at the international level, transportation or land use at the domestic level. Demonstrating the analytical similarity of international cooperation to interagency cooperation therefore requires holding issue area constant while allowing interstate and intrastate units to vary. To do this, I focus on cooperation over wildlife and habitat preservation at three levels of government in the US and Canada: federal, state, and tribal. I explain this variation in cooperation in a simple theory in which agency goals and certain features of habitats interact. Variation between successful and unsuccessful cooperation in this issue area is governed solely by characteristics of the habitat and agency goals, and does not depend on whether a problem is ?international? or ?domestic.? Thinking of international cooperation as a form of interagency cooperation should change the way we analyze international cooperation. For scholars who think in terms of nation-states interacting either in an anarchic international system, this points to a very different unit of analysis. For those who emphasize the domestic politics of international cooperation, this moves us away from executives constrained by legislatures to look at sub-units within each executive, perhaps acting as delegates of a legislative principal. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]