BTBObserver Experts Corner:

Is NAFTAs substance and spirit fading?

Veronica M. Kitchen
Associate Professor of Political Science University of Waterloo and Balsillie School of International Affairs

Burney and Hampson focus on the dampening effect that 9/11 had on NAFTAs trade objectives. Of course, the tightening of security after 9/11 also forced Canada to innovatefor better or for worse, depending on your perspectiveon security matters. The Smart Border Accords instituted the NEXUS and FAST systems designed to allow trusted goods and travelers to cross the border more quickly. And while the provisions of the Beyond the Border agreement designed to allow Canadian and American officers to work together in integrated teams in land border regions seems to be dead in the water, the Shiprider program, through which RCMP officers and US Coast Guard officials patrol together on the same boats, was regularized this summer. We also see smaller examples of security and emergency management co-operation across the border, such as agreements to expedite emergency services through border crossings and the posting of Canadian RCMP officers in US counter-terrorism institutions, and vice versa. NAFTA arguably facilitated these innovations by providing the macro-structural context for broader co-operation.

Christopher Sands

Senior Fellow Hudson Institute, Washington, D.C. Headquarters

The NAFTA Spirit is not dead, but a single market for goods and services in North America has not been achieved. It is also important that a single market for labor be added to the list of goals. If we can realize the NAFTA objective of a single market we will have set the foundation for North American economic competitiveness with Europe and Asia. The key is to attain significant productivity gains by making the governance of the cross-border transactions we rely on more efficient. In the 20th century, this was a domestic concern for the United States, with Canada and Mexico exploiting U.S. mistakes wherever they could to enter our market and compete for sales, investment and jobs against the United States. Now, Canada, Mexico and the United States are on the same side. That is the NAFTA spirit and advantage, if we leverage it. Today, the BtB and RCC (and 21CBM and HLRCC with Mexico) are the embodiment of the NAFTA spirit.

Marc D. Froese

Associate Professor Canadian University College Headquarters

In the mid-nineties NAFTA was belle of the ball, with a great deal of potential for economic development in the hemisphere. But almost twenty years on the grand dame of RTAs is showing her age. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the geopolitical context. The war on terror and a host of other issues such as the U.S. financial crisis and the drug war in northern Mexico have highlighted the political importance of borders. As a result economic integration just hasn't had the profile it did in the decade after the Cold War. Second, as Burney and Hampson point out, Canada has engaged with Mexico, but not nearly to the degree required to offset the basic hub and spoke dynamic that typifies most of the American trade relations. So we continue to think of the North American partnership in largely bilateral terms. Of course the Americans think the same way, but this has less to do with the arrogance that comes with hegemonic leadership and more to do with the fact that despite being the world's leading trader the U.S. economy is less reliant upon trade than are Canada and Mexico. Is there a political appetite in any of these countries to breathe new life into the partnership? Not likely - because there is nothing that is explicitly broken. And of course there are always so many other places to allocate political capital, such as trade agreements with the Europeans, the TPP and negotiations on trade in services, that NAFTA will continue to linger on the bottom of the dance card for the foreseeable future.