Catastrophic Terrorism at the Border: The Case of the Canada-United States Border

This article appeared in Homeland Security Affairs (2007), Supplement no. 1Land border crossings between Canada and the United States are a critical component of Canada's modern trade routes, representing a vital strategic link to the economic viability of Canada. A catastrophic terrorist event at the Canada- United States border would be an event having the potential to seriously disrupt those economic linkages, vital to the well-being of Canadians and the Canadian state. The outcome of a catastrophic terrorist incident along the border could impact Canada in a number of ways. This paper will look at two issues with regards to the border and terrorism, and briefly discuss the impact on Canada specifically, and Canada-United States relations indirectly. Those two issues are border infrastructure as the target of a terrorist attack and the potential for the transnational movement of terror groups for the purpose of delivering an attack.Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Sûreté, sécurité civile et mesures d’urgence au sein du système canadien de gouvernance multiniveau

Dans la panoplie de mécanismes de l’appareil gouvernemental moderne, aucune relation n’est plus semée d’embûches que celle qui existe entre le gouvernement et la société qu’il faut protéger à la fois des menaces extérieures et des troubles internes. La différenciation horizontale et verticale de diverses valeurs collectives, préférences et intérêts a donné lieu à une décentralisation asymétrique qui est le propre de la gouvernance multiniveau des mesures de sécurité, de protection civile et d’urgence au Canada. Cet article trace l’évolution constitutionnelle du système à travers les trois ordres de gouvernement et illustre son fonctionnement à l’aide de deux études de cas. L’effet de décentralisation et d’asymétrie et le désalignement constitutionnel entre les premiers intervenants aux niveaux municipal et provincial par rapport à la capacité d’intervention du fédéral rendent indispensable la collaboration entre les divers paliers.Across the full array of the machinery of modern democratic government, no relationship is more fraught with difficulty than that between government and the society it needs to protect from both external threat and internal disorder. Horizontal and vertical differentiation of diverse territorial and non-territorial community values, preferences, interests and values has given rise to the asymmetric decentralization that is the hallmark of the administration of multi-level security governance in Canada. This article maps the system’s historical and constitutional roots across three levels of government. It also uses two case studies to illustrate the workings of this system from the angles of: 1) the compound effect of decentralization and asymmetry ; and 2) the constitutional misalignment involving, on the one hand, the first responders working at the municipal and provincial levels and, on the other hand, the surge capacity brought to bear by a federal government largely deprived of a constitutional toolkit that would allow it to constrain rather autonomous provinces. Viewed as a whole, this situation compels adopting an intergovernmental approach whose hallmark is multi-level governance

Winning the Battle but Losing the War? Narrative and Counter-Narratives Strategy

Since 9/11, intelligence and security services have become particularly concerned about radical ideologies and have looked for ways on how to counter them. One of the strategies has been to develop a counter-narrative. Some authors, including those of this article, are concerned that, in the marketplace of ideas, the West is losing market-share.[1] Communication failures with the Muslim world were cited in a report by a U.S. Department of Defence Advisory Committee as early as 2004.[2] The puzzle this article explores is why, having recognized the problem early on, the data suggest that further ground has since been lost. We posit the problem as having to shift the discourse from one focusing on a single counter-narrative to one of tailoring communications to target specific audiences. The article traces methodological and empirical shortcomings that are at the root of the problem and builds on these findings to develop a model to strategize about counter-narratives

Security Inequalities in North America: Reassessing Regional Security Complex Theory

This article re-evaluates earlier work done by the authors on Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) in North America, using sectoral analysis initially developed by Buzan and Waever, but also adding the variables of institutions, identity, and interests. These variables are assessed qualitatively in the contemporary context on how they currently impress upon the process of securitization within sectoral relations between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The article reviews the movement from bilateral security relations between these states to the development of a trilateral response to regional security challenges post- 9/11. It further addresses the present period and what appears to be a security process derailed by recent political changes and security inequalities, heightened by the election of Donald Trump in 2016. The article argues that while these three states initially evinced a convergence of regional security interests after 9/11, which did create new institutional responses, under the current conditions, divergence in political interests and security inequalities have reduced the explanatory power of RSCT in North America. Relations between states in North American are becoming less characterized by the role of institutions and interests and more by identity politics in the region

Toward a New Trilateral Strategic Security Relationship: United States, Canada, and Mexico

The term perimeter defense has come back into vogue recently, with regard to security strategies for North America. The United States\u27 concern primarily with the terrorist threat to its homeland subsequent to September 11, 2001 (9/11) is generating this discussion with its immediate neighbors of Mexico and Canada (and to some extent some Caribbean nations—the third border ). The concept is simply that by pushing defenses out to the perimeter nations, then security will be enhanced, since the United States visions itself as more vulnerable to international terrorism than its neighbors. However, Canada and Mexico have not been very happy about the perimeter defined by Washington since 9/11. These nations have sought to define the trilateral relationship beyond just discussions of terrorism to include natural disasters and international organized crime as a component of a broader trilateral agenda. Eight years later these three nations continue to look for some convergence of security interests, although there remains a degree of tension and hesitancy towards achieving a common security agenda in the Western Hemisphere.This article examines the concept of perimeter defense within the context of the new security challenges that the United States, Mexico, and Canada face today. Questions to be addressed in the article include: Do all these nations share the same threat perception? Where exactly is the perimeter? What security arrangements have been tried in the past? What are the prospects for the future for increased security cooperation? The main focus of this article is at the sub-regional level in North America and whether a new trilateral strategic security relationship between the United States, Canada, and Mexico can emerge in North America

Tracking the war of ideas: A poll of Ottawa Muslims

A 2008 poll of 430 Ottawa Muslims found predominantly negative views of the U.S. war on terrorism, including the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. This poll also assessed approval of Western powers (U.S., Canada, Israel, United Nations) and challengers of Western power (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, government of Iran). Surprisingly, attitudes of Ottawa Muslims toward militant Muslim groups were unrelated to their attitudes toward Western governments. Discussion suggests that this pattern, if confirmed in other Muslim polls, would mean that the war of ideas against radical Islam must address not one target but two: favorable opinions of militants and unfavorable opinions of the U.S. Muslims who come to like the West more may not like Muslim militants any less