Closing Borders and Opening Debate
| Date | 01 June 2012 |
| Author | Frank Harvey |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070201206700220 |
| Published date | 01 June 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Debates |
Frank Harvey
Closing borders and
opening debate
David Jones begins his position paper (“Open borders and closing threats”)
with a perfectly reasonable question: “Where do we draw the line on the
adage that ‘Good fences make good neighbours?’” He then asks, “Do longer,
higher, barbed-wire, electrified, security-patrolled, and access-controlled
fences make for still better neighbours?” His answer to this important
question can be summed as follows: Who cares! We’re doing it anyway.
Instead of addressing important questions about where the most
effective and efficient security lines can be drawn, Jones offers what amounts
to a condescending lecture to Canadians about what we should be doing to
help protect American security interests. “We are still struggling with the
costs both financial and philosophical,” Jones proclaims, “but Canadians
who whine about our process and/or its conclusions are not helping to
resolve the baseline problems” (emphasis added). Unfortunately, Jones never
actually addresses the “baseline problems,” aside from a few sweeping
generalizations about how 9/11 “will define a generation.” Apparently, no
clearer explanation, reasonably compelling defence, or well-articulated set
of arguments is required to help readers understand the relevant political,
Frank Harvey is professor of international relations at Dalhousie University.
| International Journal | Spring 2012 | 541 |
| Frank Harvey |
social, and psychological effects of 9/11, or the various pressures officials
face as a consequence of real (and imagined) risks and threats.
Jones goes on to argue:
Many Canadians present the attitude that the United States is
paranoid over border security when we should only be neurotic. In
a phrase, ‘Humour us.’ We may indeed be that batty old Uncle
Sam who can be a wingnut caricature in cartoon cleverness, but
no Canadian wants to be tagged with the responsibility for being
the base for terrorists who strike the United States in some future
attack…. Ottawa needs to be in the unassailable position that it is
clear that Canada went the extra mile to placate the paranoid uncle,
because even paranoids have real enemies. And angry paranoids
will strike out at the perceived source of injury, regardless of
whether they damage themselves as well....
What we seek from Canadians is maximum effort to support our
interests. Kvetching that we are using too many nails to shut the
‘barn door’ doesn’t qualify as support.
The assertion that Canadian officials should simply sit back, “humour
us” and let the batty old, paranoid, wingnut of an uncle do the hard work
does not amount to a plausible policy position worthy of engaging serious
debate: it essentially abdicates the responsibility (obligation?) Jones has, as
a former US State Department official who worked on the Canada file, to
explain and defend contemporary US security policies. Jones may think
he is on solid ground when directing his lecture to Canadian whiners,
but it becomes a little worrisome when one considers that the exact same
complaints are being raised by a growing number of prominent American
citizens, scholars, and policy officials who remain equally skeptical about the
“facts” surrounding the risks and costs of globalized terrorism. In light of
the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in homeland security since
2001 (approximately $72 billion last year), Americans are just as motivated
to ask perfectly reasonable questions about the true scale of terrorist threats.
Insulting critics by telling them to relax and let the folks in Washington
handle things (“Humour us!”) is dangerously reminiscent of the response
the US government, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Wall Street investment
bankers offered to their critics before the bailout—“Trust us!”
| 542 | Spring 2012 | International Journal |
| Open borders and closing threats |
There are at least three problems with Jones’s approach, each of which
undermines the credibility and tolerability of his key recommendations (many
of which I endorse). The first problem stems not from Jones’s simplistic
caricature of “Canadian” whiners, but his decidedly superficial take on the
spectrum of American views and opinions on globalized terrorism and US
security priorities. The views he ascribes to most Canadians are actually
widely shared by a significant number of well-informed Americans.
Second, Jones spends very little time addressing the non-rational
foundations and/or psychological origins of the public’s (and by extension,
the US government’s) elevated fears of terrorism: he simply accepts these
fears as perfectly reasonable and appropriate notwithstanding the fact that
many of the risks are overblown.
Third, Jones does little to explain the nature of the homeland
security dilemma, namely, that despite the fact that terrorist threats are
consistently overblown, political leaders are nevertheless compelled to
spend billions every year to expand US homeland security architecture and
infrastructure, often in ways that are...
To continue reading
Request your trial