North American Security Perimeter and its Implications for North American Community.

Title: North American Security Perimeter and its Implications for North American Community One of the outcomes of the terrorist attacks of September 11 was the reexamination by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico of their security/border policies. The security concerns prompted the North American countries to adopt Smart Border policies and even consider the idea of a North American Security Perimeter (NASP) as a way of dealing with future security threats (Hristoulas, 2002). However, despite the fact that the idea of a NAPS has begun to float around official circles in Ottawa, Mexico City, and Washington D.C all three countries have yet to elaborate their vision of perimeter and what it would entail. The U.S. called for examination of a NASP right after September 11. President Bush ordered various departments to begin negotiating with Canada and Mexico to ensure increased compatibility of immigration, customs and VISA policies. This paper will examine the concept of North American Security Perimeter and its implications for the idea of a North American community and North American integration. Discussions around the border focus around whether borders in North America should look like a traditional border and operate as a dividing line between countries or whether the physical border should be shifted away from North America. But beyond this vague and ambiguous definition of the perimeter concept, the countries of North America have yet to move on the idea. This paper will first, examine the idea of a NAPS and what it means to each country. Second, this paper will explore barriers associated with moving towards a NASP such as the bilateralism inherent in the trilateral relationship, sovereignty concerns displayed by Canada and Mexico and U.S. unilateral decision-making. Finally, the paper will analyze the implications of perimeter for the idea of a North American community and whether it can lead to the development of a genuine community or whether it will just perpetuate the current asymmetries in the trilateral relationship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]