Smart Borders and the Rise of Bilateralism

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe consolidation of multistate regions is one of the most interesting features of globalization's recent past. The European Union may be by far the most advanced example of this phenomenon, but America, including as it does the global hegemon, is surely no less important.Linguistic markersThis special issue takes as its premise the notion that comprises not just the United States and Canada, as it used to, but also Mexico. This is not obvious because, at first glance, the word hardly seems to describe a political entity. Historically, norte americano in Mexico designated the other, foreign, threatening but also alluring space to the north from which Mexico was excluded, and to which Mexican obreres were attracted. This phrase's usage in Mexican discourse began to become self-referential after the signature of the American free trade agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, which bound together the United States of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada in an accord aimed at formalizing and deepening the already considerable economic integration that had occurred between the global hegemon and its two neighbours.1Notwithstanding this linguistic difficulty, North America does designate much more than a triad of contiguous countries to the north of Guatemala. Geographically and ecologically, it has long existed as a continental entity. More recently, increasing economic, demographic, and cultural flows have caused some perhaps overenthusiastic scholars to talk about the emergence of a American community.Accepting this premise of a regional reality, we must take care not to project onto it the notions that have emerged from the past 50 years of integration on the eastern shores of the Atlantic Ocean. Unlike the much more deeply institutionalized European Union with its Schengen-mandated disappearing frontiers, America's borders remain largely intact and, since the tragedy at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, have been raised considerably higher. Furthermore, we must keep in mind two of the continent's continuing realities:Asymmetry identifies the enormous difference in capacity between the USA and its two neighbours. For example, while dealing with Uncle Sam has to be the overwhelming concern of Canada's and Mexico's foreign services, the opposite is not true. Dealing with Canada and Mexico only involves Washington's peripheral vision as it pursues its interests abroad.Skewedness describes the colossal cultural and historical differences between Mexico's relationships with the United States on the one hand and Canada's relations with the USA on the other. This makes it somewhat risky to lump Canada together with Mexico in a common category as the United States' periphery since differences often vastly outweigh the similarities between these two countries both in their domestic realities and in the way that they connect with their American neighbour.Conceptual modelFor analytical purposes, this article will posit a simplified dynamic model, presenting the complex processes of American integration and disintegration as the product of four often conflicting forces operating within the continent:US expansionism, which is driven by competitive industries within the American market and is managed by the US state, and which pushes its neighbours to lower their border barriers.US protectionism, which is activated by uncompetitive industries and is also managed by the US state, and tends to strengthen US border barriers against foreign competition.Integrative efforts by the two peripheral governments to enhance their relationship with Uncle Sam and increase their access to his market, which, when successful, reduce US border barriers.Defensive efforts by the two peripheral governments to guard their autonomy from Uncle Sam and to deal with their own internal struggles, which, when successful, raise the peripheries' border barriers. …