by Jay Makarenko
December 11th, 2001
Our newspapers, magazines, and televisions have
been plastered with daily updates on the international war against
terrorism. We see pictures of American missiles blasting the
Afghanistan landscape; we watch videos of Canadian sailors kissing
their loved ones goodbye; we read the threats from political leaders
on both sides of this war. However, another aspect of this war is
beginning to appear. It doesn't involve soldiers, missiles or
warships, but Canadian economic social values and interests.
Since the September 11th terrorist attacks,
some in the United States have been pointing to Canada as North
America's weakest security link. This, in turn, has led to calls by
Americans for a continental security perimeter or “Fortress North
America.” These calls have now turned into action. On October
29th, U.S. President George W. Bush ordered his officials to begin
harmonizing 
U.S. customs and immigration policies with Canada and
Mexico. On October 31st the United States Senate introduced the
Enhanced Border Security Act, which requires the American government
to explore the feasibility of setting up a North American National
Security perimeter. Like our southern neighbours, Canadians are
concerned with domestic security after the events on September 11th,
but our concept of Fortress North America involves more than just
security. In establishing a common security perimeter, Canada would
sacrifice some of its sovereignty, especially in regards to
immigration and customs policies. Therefore we must decide whether
we should trade sovereignty for security.
Several issues need to be examined to answer this
question. First, we need to interpret sovereignty. What does it
mean? Why is it important? What are its limits? When should we limit
it? Second, we need to apply this interpretation of sovereignty to
the case of Fortress North America. Are its objectives important? Is
it necessary? Is it reasonable? By examining these issues it becomes
clear that while Fortress North America's objectives are important,
the concept is nevertheless unnecessary and unreasonable for Canada.
|
