Smart Borders and the Rise of Bilateralism
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200606100305 |
| Author | Stephen Clarkson |
| Date | 01 September 2006 |
| Published date | 01 September 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Stephen Clarkson
Smart borders and the
rise of bilateralism
The constrained hegemonification of North America after
September 11
| 588 | International Journal | Summer 2006 |
INTRODUCTION
The consolidation of multistate regions is one of the most interesting fea-
tures of globalization’s recent past. The European Union may be by far the
most advanced example of this phenomenon, but North America, including
as it does the global hegemon, is surely no less important.
Linguistic markers
This special issue takes as its premise the notion that North America com-
prises 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 desig-
nated the other, foreign, threatening but also alluring space to the north
from which Mexico was excluded, and to which Mexican
obreros
were
attracted. This phrase’s usage in Mexican discourse began to become self-
referential after the signature of the North 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
Stephen Clarkson is professor of political science at the University of Toronto.
| International Journal | Summer 2006 | 589 |
| Smart borders and the rise of bilateralism |
and deepening the already considerable economic integration that had
occurred between the global hegemon and its two neighbours.1
Notwithstanding this linguistic difficulty, “North America” does desig-
nate much more than a triad of contiguous countries to the north of
Guatemala. Geographically and ecologically, it has long existed as a conti-
nental entity. More recently, increasing economic, demographic, and cul-
tural flows have caused some perhaps overenthusiastic scholars to talk
about the emergence of a North 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 inte-
gration on the eastern shores of the Atlantic Ocean. Unlike the much more
deeply institutionalized European Union with its Schengen-mandated dis-
appearing frontiers, North 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 for-
eign 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 simi-
larities between these two countries both in their domestic realities and in
the way that they connect with their American neighbour.
Conceptual model
For analytical purposes, this article will posit a simplified dynamic model,
presenting the complex processes of North American integration and dis-
integration as the product of four often conflicting forces operating within
the continent:
1 Even Mexican specialists on North America still use “norteamericano” to mean “US.”
To continue reading
Request your trial