Sen. John McCain travels to Ottawa Friday to laud the benefits of free trade.
Although I am not a member of the Republican party, and I am, in fact, supporting his opponent in the presidential race, I want to applaud his staunch support of the relationship between Canada and the U.S. Likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, who has, in the past, criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) while emphasizing that he doesn't subscribe to protectionist sentiments, has not yet chosen to spend an afternoon in Canada.
Whoever the next President is, I hope that this renewed focus on our friend to the north portends a new era in bilateral engagement.
The enormous historic successes of the Canada-U.S. relationship are such a well-kept secret that the agreement which has 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 many people think it is. There are some who even fault NAFTA for the loss of jobs to China and India.
The term "NAFTA" has unfortunately become slang for globalization and unfair trade.
That's because we have failed to explain the truth to our respective publics and to confront the naysayers with the facts. An uninformed public is all too easily misled by ideologically driven talking heads like CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, who are more interested in attracting viewers than providing honest assessments.
While I believe the merits of NAFTA are evident, still, its advocates must be more vocal in the current debate. Moreover, it is not sufficient simply to defend NAFTA, a policy that's 20 years old.
We must define a new, forward-looking vision for our nations' economic relationship. Our connection is much deeper than simply what we sell to each other, and therefore must be examined in detail. Thus, let me suggest three fundamental propositions to guide the next phase of our partnership.
No. 1: We have become too complacent. It is imperative that we renew our appreciation for our shared history and affirmatively re-invigorate how we co-inhabit the northern half of this continent.
We were partners when we liberated Europe in World War II and confronted communism during the Cold War. We are side by side in Afghanistan today. We coexisted next to a boundary that was once labeled the longest undefended border in the world. We built prosperous economies with the 1960s auto pact, which allowed cars to be transported tax-free across our borders; we now follow a policy of free trade.
We do not adequately celebrate and advertise that history of mutually beneficial collaboration to our citizens and, more importantly, we have been resting on those accomplishments for quite some time.
No. 2: It takes two to tango, not three. The current tendency in Washington and Ottawa is to tri-lateralize every policy discussion by including Mexico. That is a mistake for the growth and development of our northern neighborhood, and I believe it unintentionally impedes our relationship. Frankly, there are many border management initiatives that are feasible at the 49th parallel but not practical at the Rio Grande.
Mexico is not a member of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation; Canada and the U.S are. Its democratic and economic institutions are simply not at the stage of development that we enjoy. We shouldn't leave Mexico or tri-lateralism behind, but if we can make immediate progress with just Canada and the U.S., even beyond NAFTA's dictates, we should.
No. 3: I believe that our northern neighborhood has become a hostage to a morass of small ideas. Europe has outstripped us when it comes to solving the riddle of reducing barriers, harmonizing regulatory regimes and facilitating commerce without eroding the political or territorial sovereignty of any nation. Each year, countries on the fringes of the E.U. campaign desperately to gain entry to the club. But it is not so in this hemisphere.
In 1909, Canada and the U.S. formed an institution called the International Joint Commission to manage our boundary waters. In 1958, we created NORAD to provide for mutual defense of our continental airspace. And in 1988, we entered into the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the first template for NAFTA.
Each was a bold step; none was free of opposition from short-sighted nationalists and protectionists in either country.
If we fail to consider this kind of progress, North America will be at a competitive disadvantage to Europe, and the U.S. will risk Canada's diverting an increasing share of its natural resources, including oil, to Asia.
It cannot be disputed that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary. But we've failed to reach a consensus on any substantive initiative to address the security threats--and the challenges to our economic growth and development--that we share.
But there's hope. The mere fact that a senator who might be president is focused on the attributes of our partnership makes this week an opportune moment to deflate the political football and kick off a new era.
Appointed by President Bill Clinton, Gordon D. Giffin was U.S. ambassador to Canada from 1997 to 2001. A partner with McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, he was a co-chair of Hillary Clinton's presidental campaign.