The week began with a visit of four Canadian premiers to Savannah, Ga., and ends today with a visit by Senator John McCain to Ottawa.
In each setting, leaders from various parties and regions are touting the benefits of Canada-U.S. collaboration generally, and of the North American free-trade agreement specifically. Such meetings and engagement are to be encouraged. (While Barack Obama hasn't chosen to spend an afternoon in Canada yet, it's clear he understands and values the relationship.)
The enormous historic successes of the Canada-U.S. relationship are such a well-kept secret that the agreement that facilitated much of our shared prosperity has become a political football.
NAFTA is no more responsible for the loss of industrial jobs in the American Midwest than is the Treaty of Versailles - but the problem is many people think it is. There are some who even fault NAFTA for the loss of jobs to China and India.
The term "NAFTA," unfortunately, has become slang for globalization and unfair trade. That's been made possible because we have failed to explain the truth to our respective publics and failed to confront the naysayers with the facts. An uninformed public is able to be misled by ideologically driven talking heads such as CNN's business commentator Lou Dobbs, who are more interested in attracting viewers than in honest education.
While I believe the merits of NAFTA are evident, its advocates must be more vocal in the current debate. It's not sufficient simply to defend the 20-year-old agreement. Rather, we must define a new dynamic for a forward-looking vision for the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Our future together is more than commerce and must be examined in its broader context.
First, we have become complacent in our partnership. It is imperative that we renew our appreciation for our shared history and explain to our citizens why open borders, international collaboration and unfettered commerce are in both peoples' interest.
We were partners in liberating Europe in the Second World War and in confronting Communism during the Cold War. We co-existed on a continent along what was once referred to as the longest undefended border in the world. We built prosperous economies with the 1960s-vintage Auto Pact, followed by the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement. We have been resting on these accomplishments for quite some time now, and do not adequately celebrate and advertise that history of mutually beneficial collaboration to our fellow citizens.
Second, we must remember that it takes two to tango, not three. The current tendency in Washington and Ottawa is to trilateralize every policy discussion and bring our fellow North American nation, Mexico, into the equation.
That is a mistake for the growth and development of the Canada-U.S. neighbourhood and it has created an unintended impediment to the evolution of our bilateral relationship. Frankly, there are many initiatives, simply in the realm of border management, that are feasible at the 49th parallel but that may not be practical at the Rio Grande. Mexico is not part of NORAD, NATO or the OECD. Its democratic and economic institutions are not at the stage of development we enjoy. This doesn't mean we leave Mexico or trilateralism behind, but it does mean that where we can make immediate bilateral progress together beyond NAFTA, we should.
Third, our northern neighbourhood has become hostage to the morass of small ideas; we have forgotten that bold ideas work. Europe has outstripped us in solving the riddle of reducing barriers, harmonizing regulatory regimes and facilitating commerce, without eroding the political or territorial sovereignty of any nation state. Each year, countries on the fringes of the European Union campaign desperately to gain entry in the club - not so in this hemisphere.
In 1909, Canada and the United States created a visionary institution, the International Joint Commission, to manage our multiple boundary waters. In 1958, we created NORAD to provide for mutual defence of our continental airspace. In 1988, we entered into the Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement, the template for NAFTA. Each were bold steps towards a vision of a better, more efficient, more collaborative North America. None of these steps substantively or politically were easy.
None of them were free of opposition from shortsighted nationalists and protectionists in either country. But they were bold ideas worth implementing.
The events of Sept. 11, 2001, complicated some of the ideas that should be pursued but this should not be a reason to retain the status quo.
It cannot be disputed that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary. Where we have failed to forge a consensus is on visionary initiatives to address our shared security threats and shared challenges to our economic growth and development.
The fact that the governors of Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee met this week with the premiers of Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and PEI and that a senator who might be president is today focused on the attributes of our partnership makes this a very good week to deflate the political football and kick off a new era.
Gordon D. Giffin, former U.S. ambassador to Canada, is a partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in Washington.