Wise Words from ‘Wise Men’ on US Defense and Security

      Comments Off on Wise Words from ‘Wise Men’ on US Defense and Security

From Winter edition 2012  ON TRACK Vol. 17 No. 3.

Wise Advice on the Fiscal Cliff and US Security

The reelection of President Obama to a second term and his determination to deal with U.S. economic challenges – currently characterized by the ongoing discussions around the ‘fiscal cliff’- mean that the US Forces face a degree of austerity.

After a decade of expansion and active combat in foreign wars, re-examination of American national security policy and capacity is sensible. Common sense should prevail. Regardless, more will be expected from the rest of the Alliance.

Sequestration and already scheduled cuts would impose a haircut of almost 10 per cent on the Pentagon over the next decade. While Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned of a ‘meat-ax’ approach that would jeopardize national security, the devil will be in the detail.

Some perspective is also necessary: during the past decade, the base defense budget has nearly doubled, from $297 billion in 2001 to more than $520 billion and it was projected to rise to $700 billion by 2020. While the scope of the cuts is still unclear

Pentagon spending has lots of congressional protectors, especially with the bases and jobs that depend on research and hardware – aircraft and ships – that are built in nearly every corner of the country. There is acknowledgement even among defense advocates that they will need to do their part.

A group of wise persons – the Coalition for Fiscal and National Security, chaired by former Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral (ret.) Mike Mullen, have intervened with sensible advice that should be read by all the Allies.

Spanning eight administration the Coalition includes former defense secretaries Robert Gates, Harold Brown and Frank Carlucci; Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve;  former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright, James Baker, Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill former senators Sam Nunn and Jack Warner, former House Armed Services chair Ike Skelton and former National Security Advisors Sam Berger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

They argue that the national debt is “the single greatest threat to our national security” and that the crisis “ has revealed a perhaps equally dangerous political one: Our inability to grapple with pressing fiscal challenges represents nothing less than a crisis in our democratic order. “

The U.S. accounts for 48 percent of the world’s military spending. While the overall budget may not shrink it will certainly not grow at the same rate as it has since 9/11. This will mean hard choices within the Department of Defense as they face new challenges around cyber-security and continue the pivot towards Asia, while trying to maintain current Force readiness.

Intelligent pruning is possible, however, and the Coalition observe: advances in technological capabilities and the changing nature of threats make it possible, if properly done, to spend less on a more intelligent, efficient and contemporary defense strategy that maintains our military superiority and national security.”

They argue that “advances in technological capabilities and the changing nature of threats make it possible, if properly done, to spend less on a more intelligent, efficient and contemporary defense strategy that maintains our military superiority and national security.” In the belief that an ounce of diplomacy is worth a pound of ‘shock and awe’, the Coalition recommends spending more on the State Department to enhance the “non-defense dimensions of our national security” and “diplomatic assets.”

In her confirmation testimony Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton elaborated on this approach. She defined ‘smart power’ as using all the tools at Americas disposal –  diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural – “picking the right tool or combination of tools for each situation”   arguing that “with smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy.”

The Americans will eventually find a way to avoid their ‘fiscal cliff’ because, as Churchill observed, you can always count on them to do the right thing, “after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” The Coalition concluded that the new compact requires not   “Herculean efforts, but a fusing of common sense, fairness, and pragmatism. It summons the truest form of patriotism – putting our country first.”

It will, however, require the Alliance to step up to the plate.

Both Gates and current Secretary Leon Panetta have called on the Allies to step up to the plate. Afghanistan and Libya illustrated the limits of the Alliance: despite relative unanimity around the mission when it came to operations in the field their commitment was variegated.  Some countries placed limits on their positions or caveats on the use of their forces. In Libya, eight allies bore the burden of the strike mission.

In the decade following 9/11, European defense spending declined by nearly 15 percent. Only five of the 28 allies now spent the agreed target of 2 percent of GDP on defense (for 2011 Canada stood at 1.4 percent).

In his farewell speech to the NATO Council (June 2011),  Gates warned of a ‘two-tiered’ alliance between those “willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership … but don’t want to share the risks and the costs.” Gates observed that “despite more than 2 million troops in uniform — not counting the U.S. military — NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25,000 to 40,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets.” More recently, at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Prague (November, 2012) Secretary General Anders Rasmussen echoed the appeal and called on the legislators to ‘hold the line’ on defence spending.

Canada will be expected to do its part. We do so, not because the US is asking us to, but because of our longstanding commitment to collective security, More importantly, the national interest requires us to invest in our own security and not rely on others to do it for us.

A Primer to the State of the Union

      Comments Off on A Primer to the State of the Union

Obama’s State of the Union: A Canadian primer

By | Feb 12, 2013 1:05 pm

What is the State of the Union (SOTU)?

“ He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. ”
— Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution

With this constitutional requirement in mind, each president gives an ‘Annual Message’ to Congress. The practice is also followed by some states where the governor will give a ‘state of the state’ address.

George Washington and John Adams spoke to joint sessions of Congress but Thomas Jefferson made it a written report because he considered the speech too ‘monarchial’. In 1913, Woodrow Wilson restarted the practice. Since Franklin Roosevelt the speech is given in late January or early February. The phrase ‘state of the union’ or SOTU in Beltway speak, is attributed to Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt also began the practice of a night-time address in recognition that with the advent of radio, his audience was not just those in the chamber but the American public who listen and now watch. In 1997, Bill Clinton began the practice of live streaming the SOTU on the web. Last year’s State of the Union address reached 48 million people, according to Neilsen.

What happens?

There is a protocol to the SOTU beginning with the Speaker of the House formally inviting the President to address a joint session of Congress.

Tonight,  members of the House will assemble in their chamber and at approximately 830PM EST the Deputy Sergeant-at-arms announces the arrival of the Vice-President and members of the Senate.

They are followed by the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices, the Cabinet and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all of whom seated nearest the rostrum.

By tradition, one cabinet member is designated to stay in a secure location  –the ‘survivor’ to ensure continuity and, since 9-11,  this has also included a few members of Congress. Traditionally the members sit by party. This was obvious in the applause (or lack thereof) but after the Tucson shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords, there has been a mixing of members.

Just after 9PM the House Sergeant-at-Arms in stentorian voice will announce: “Mister Speaker, the President of the United States!” He makes his way slowly through the crowd and takes his place at the House Clerk’s desk and then hands copies of his speech to the Vice President and Speaker. They sit behind him in the Speaker’s desk. The Speaker then proclaims: “Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States.”

The Speech

The President speaks to his agenda and the state of the union for about an hour. George Washington favoured brevity. His address was 10-15 minutes.

The address usually focuses on domestic policy – Lyndon Johnson declared a ‘war on poverty’ in 1964.  There is often a strong foreign policy component. James Monroe declared the doctrine that bears his name in 1823. In 1941, Franklin Roosevelt proclaimed the ‘Four Freedoms’. In 2002, George W. Bush described North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the ‘axis of evil.’

Since Ronald Reagan, with an eye for stagecraft, the speech will contain references to individuals, sitting close to the First Lady, like Larry Skutnik, the hero of the Air Florida flight that crashed into the Potomac in January, 1982.

Since Lyndon Johnson’s 1966 SOTU, the opposition party has followed the speech with a televised address of rebuttal. Senator Mario Rubio of Florida, featured on the cover of this week’s Time Magazine as “the Republican Savior”, will give this year’s GOP response in both English and Spanish.

What are the Canadian interests?

Listen in particular for references to climate change and trade.

The President resurrected climate change as a priority in his Inaugural Address “knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition. We must lead it…”

Legislative effort in his first term sputtered out in the Senate after the then Democrat-controlled House of Representatives had passed a bill (Waxman-Markey) that would have created a cap and trade system on green-house gas emissions with mandates for renewable energy generation, subsidies for wind, solar and other ‘green’ energy, as well as a renewable electricity standard (RES). From the Canadian perspective we want to ensure that our big hydro projects in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec (and eventually Labrador) are included in the definition of RES.

Cap and trade would potentially raise the costs, in the short term, for American manufacturers there was suggestion that a levy would be assessed on goods from countries that did not have the same energy standards as the US. While aimed at China there was always the potential that Canada could get side-swiped because of the oli sands.

The President has set an “all of the above” approach to achieving US energy independence. This includes the potential increase in supply of both offshore and inshore oil and especially natural gas through fracking although this is still in its infancy. Environmentalists point to contamination of water and air.

Energy from Canada and Mexico play into the energy independence scenario.

Our immediate interest is the permit for the XL pipeline. This is the second application. The first application was denied in January, 2012 after Nebraska expressed concerns about its routing through the Ogallala Aquifer, that Governor Dave Heineman described as “the lifeblood of Nebraska’s agriculture industry”. The route was changed. After an extensive inquiry by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, Governor Heineman wrote (January 22) the President and Secretary Clinton saying that Nebraska now favours the pipeline.

The permit for the pipeline is granted through the State Department. Foreign Minister John Baird raised it Friday (February 8) when he met Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry was non-committal noting that the environmental assessment was currently underway but he “agreed to stay in touch on the Keystone pipeline.”

.

This coming Sunday (February 19) exhorts the Sierra Club website (and its ally 350.org) “thousands of activists will head to the White House and tell President Obama to shut down the climate-killing Keystone XL pipeline once and for all”. They promise it will be the “biggest climate demonstration yet”  against “Big Oil”. Their goal is “to form a massive human pipeline through Washington and then transform it into a giant symbol of the renewable energy future we need and are ready to build, starting right away.”

The XL pipeline has become as a rallying point for environmentalists and other activists in the same fashion as was the debate over ‘clear-cutting’ in the Great Bear Forest and the seal hunt. But the strategic value of Canadian oil and gas is not lost on the Pentagon. As for the US environmentalist movement, Prime Minister Harper has tartly observed in the context of the Northern Gateway application that “just because certain people in the United States would like to see Canada be one giant national park for the northern half of North America, I don’t think that’s part of what our review process is all about.”

The oil sands and XL debate underlines why we have to get our oil and gas by pipeline, rail or truck to tidewater ports on the Pacific or Atlantic coasts if we are to diversify our markets and get a better price for our product.

Trade between Canada and the US continues to be the biggest between any two nations.

Trade generates jobs and with the American public consistently putting the economy and jobs at the top of their priority list it will feature large in the SOTU. The President has promised to double American exports. Last year a study commissioned by the Canadian Embassy concluded eight million jobs in the US depend on trade with Canada and that for 35 American states Canada is their main export destination.

If the President talks about infrastructure then we can hope for an early permitting of the proposed new Second Crossing between Detroit and Windsor. This is our busiest commercial gateway and it has encountered many obstacles including a ballot initiative sponsored by the Ambassador Bridge owner that was defeated in November. As Ambassador Doer remarked at that time, the bridge will create 10,000 – 15,000 direct construction jobs in Michigan. Michigan’s share of the bridge cost, estimated to be $550 million, will be paid by the Government of Canada and recouped through bridge tolls. Any cost overruns or revenue shortfalls will be paid by Canada. The bridge will be built with U.S. and Canadian steel.

Departing Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood talked positively of the project last week saying that “I think everything is possible in Michigan when it comes to transportation. I think of the leadership of the governor (Rick Snyder) with Canada on the bridge crossing; what that will mean in terms of jobs, what that will mean in terms of the kind of relationship we have with Canada in terms of exports and imports. They need to get this project under way, get it done, and continue this kind of continuity of leadership that exists.”

Access to the US market is always a top Canadian priority.

A pair of initiatives launched by the President and Prime Minister in February, 2011 put aside the false choice between security and trade recognizing that economic security is vital to North American competitiveness. The initiatives are aimed at improving border access and regulatory cooperation based on the principle of “cleared once, inspected twice”. Process can be a placebo for action,  but in this case process is progress because we need to see attitudinal change on the part of those who mind the border.

State of the Union and Canadian Interests

      Comments Off on State of the Union and Canadian Interests

Obama talks: What Canadians should listen for

Special to The Globe and Mail Published Tuesday, Feb. 12 2013, 9:44 AM EST

Within the Washington beltway, SOTU (State of the Union) is as well known an acronym as POTUS (President) and SCOTUS (Supreme Court). It titled a Frank Capra movie and today it’s the name of a political talk show. But, on Tuesday evening, we’ll see the real thing. House Speaker John Boehner will gavel to order members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the joint chiefs of staff, the Supreme Court, foreign ambassadors and invited guests. Then President Barack Obama will deliver the first State of the Union address – SOTU – of his second term.

The speech will spell out how the president wants to achieve the priorities spelled out in the recent inaugural, especially around the economy and the environment. With our deep economic interdependence and shared space, we need to listen carefully because SOTU has potential implications for Canada.

First, listen for a re-commitment to job creation.

With unemployment at 7.9 per cent, jobs and the economy continue to be top of the public agenda. A promise of new money for infrastructure could benefit the planned second crossing between Detroit and Windsor. Nearly a quarter of Canada-U.S. trade passes through this gateway. Dogged by rear-guard action from the owner of the Ambassador Bridge – including a failed effort in the November ballot to secure a referendum – it now requires a presidential permit before it can be built. Canada has committed a half-billion dollars for its construction.

In earlier SOTU addresses, Mr. Obama promised to create jobs by doubling U.S. exports. Even if his language is mercantilist, the emphasis on trade is important. In our global economy, trade depends on imports as much as exports to generate jobs. A commitment by the President to the Trans-Pacific Partnership can give it the political heft necessary to move the negotiations forward. If he also endorses a European free-trade agreement (FTA) then we need to quickly seal our own CETA deal with the EU. When the U.S. moved on its South Korean FTA, we were left in the cold. A Canada-South Korea deal is still not concluded.

Second, listen for a renewed commitment to the environment.

Frustrated by the failure of Congress to achieve significant climate change legislation in his first term, the administration used its regulatory powers, mostly through the Environmental Protection Agency, to raise auto emission standards (that Canada mirrored) and to tighten the screws on greenhouse gas emissions. King Coal still provides half of America’s power generation. With shale gas a game-changer for power generation, look to more regulatory action on coal-fired plants.

Canada’s immediate objective is getting the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. After his meeting on Friday with new Secretary of State John Kerry, Foreign Minister John Baird got the equivalent of a pat from a cousin when Mr. Kerry promised that he “would keep in touch” on Keystone. It underlines why we have to get our oil and gas to tidewater – new markets and better prices.

Mr. Kerry will be watching to see what happens this Sunday when the Sierra Club and its allies rally around the White House to “tell President Obama to shut down the climate-killing Keystone XL pipeline once and for all” in their “biggest demonstration yet” against ‘Big Oil’.

With Nebraska now onside, the State Department’s environmental assessment is the last significant hurdle to Keystone. It should be the ‘no-brainer’ that Prime Minister Stephen Harper once described it as, given that the first application received a positive environmental assessment. But the environmental movement has made the pipeline the surrogate for the oil sands, and thus a litmus test for the President’s commitment to climate change.

Third, look to what the President says on defense.

Looming ahead is ‘sequester,’ a terrible word with terrible consequences: across the board indiscriminate spending cuts, especially in defense. In his farewell remarks, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned that a “pattern of constant partisanship and gridlock and recrimination” degrades America’s national security, and “ability to respond to crisis precisely at a time of rising instability across the globe.”

Mr. Panetta has also called on the allies to contribute their fair share or, as his predecessor Bob Gates put it in his NATO valedictory, we face “a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance.”

Only five members of the 28-member alliance currently spend the agreed minimum 2 per cent of GDP on defence. Canada is not among them. In an age of globalization, sea-power counts. As we develop Pacific markets we have a vested interest in secure sea lanes. The U.S. will expect us to move on our promised new warships and remind Mr. Harper of his own words that, “Canada and its economy float on salt water.”

For a second term president, the first eighteen months are critical in terms of achievement and legacy. The political dynamic then inevitably shifts to the mid-terms. After that the president is considered a ‘lame duck’ and the campaigning for 2016 and a new president begins in earnest. If the inaugural address provides the vision for a new administration, the State of the Union sets the blueprint. So listen carefully to tonight’s SOTU.

On Ambassador Jacobson

      Comments Off on On Ambassador Jacobson

Excerpted  Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News January 23, 2013 Obama to replace ambassador with ‘clout’

U.S. President Barack Obama will be sending a new ambassador to Canada this year, a move that could have ramifications for Canada-U.S. relations.

On Tuesday, officials at the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa said it’s expected Ambassador David Jacobson’s term will not be extended. Traditionally, they said, two-term presidents send a new ambassador to Ottawa for the second term. They added that no decision has been made on Jacobson’s successor, or exactly when that new ambassador will be appointed.

The departure of Jacobson, who arrived in Canada in October 2009, could leave a significant hole.

He is a former Chicago lawyer who was a senior fundraiser for Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign, and has continued to have clout with the president.

Jacobson has been a leading player in helping Canada and the U.S. smooth over some bilateral irritants. Perhaps most significantly, he was a crucial force behind advocating for the Canada-U.S. border deal that tightens security while also speeding access at the border. He has also developed a strong personal rapport and working relationship with Gary Doer, Canada’s Ambassador to the U.S.

Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat who once worked at Canada’s Embassy in Washington, said in an interview Tuesday that the bilateral relationship benefited thanks to Jacobson.

Jacobson was unknown to most people when Obama won his first presidential election. He had been Obama’s deputy finance chairman during the campaign.

In the first few months of Obama’s presidency, he worked in the White House Personnel Office, helping the president fill dozens of diplomatic postings before his nomination as ambassador.

“Jacobson, because of the personal relationship, clearly had clout,” said Robertson. “You want an American ambassador who can pick up the phone and get through to the White House – to the president or the chief of staff. And Jacobson had those attributes.”

The major accomplishment during Jacobson’s term was the achievement of a “Beyond the Border” agreement signed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Obama.

Under the deal, both governments are embarking on pilot projects to adopt a joint “perimeter security” approach to protect the border.

In addition to guarding against terrorism, the Canadian government hopes the agreement will ease cross-border traffic congestion so that the two countries can trade goods on time.

Robertson said he doesn’t think the deal would have been struck without Jacobson’s work behind the scenes.

“The prime minister was pushing it, and Jacobson intervened a couple of times with the White House.”…

Building the President’s Administration

      Comments Off on Building the President’s Administration

Obama’s inauguration: How presidents build teams iPolitics Insight

By | Jan 20, 2013
See also  Globe and Mail January, 20, 2013

Will Obama appoint the first woman to Ottawa?

“The president shall nominate and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.”

— US Constitution, Article II, section 2, clause 2

In setting the agenda for his second term, President Barack Obama’s first order of business (which has already started) is cabinet-making and putting names to the more than 5,000 jobs in the Executive subject to noncompetitive appointment, some of which require Senate approval. These positions, as well as the several thousand that are the prerogative of the Legislative branch, can be found in the Plum Book published by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

When John F. Kennedy was President, only about 280 executive branch positions required Senate approval. That number has since escalated into four digits, despite Senate agreement last year to streamline the nomination process by exempting about 170 positions that do not involve policy-making.

The most important positions, all of which require Senate consent, are the cabinet secretaries. In order of precedence (with current incumbent in brackets) they are: State (Hillary Clinton), Treasury (Timothy Geithner), Defence (Leon Panetta), Justice (Attorney General Eric Holder), Interior (Ken Salazar), Agriculture (Tom Vilsack), Commerce (Rebecca Blank is acting secretary), Labor (Hilda Solis), Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sibelius), Housing and Urban Development (Shaun Donovan),Transportation (Ray LaHood), Energy (Steven Chu), Education (Arne Duncan), Veterans Affairs (Eric Shineski), Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano).

For now, the only cabinet members who have indicated they want to stay for the second term are Secretaries Napolitano, Shineski, Sibelius and Attorney General Holder.

President Obama has nominated Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democrat standard-bearer John Kerry as Secretary of State, former Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Their confirmation hearings will begin in the coming weeks.

Cabinet-level positions also include the White House Chief of Staff (Jack Lew, who is Obama’s Treasury nominee), Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Jeffrey Zients), Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (Lisa Jackson, who is stepping down), U.S. Trade Representative (Ron Kirk), Ambassador to the United Nations (Susan Rice), Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors (Alan Krueger) and Administrator of the Small Business Administration (Karen Mills). They serve at the pleasure of the president with an annual salary of $199,700.

All of these positions are important and Canadian cabinet ministers and senior civil servants should get to know their counterparts because it’s all about relationships.

The job that most directly affects Canadians, of course, is the U.S. ambassador. It is a position that also must be confirmed by the Senate.

Nomination hearings can be the stuff of Hollywood screenplays — a packed room with a full complement of senators both defending and ‘prosecuting’ the nominee. This is often the case with judicial appointments, as I witnessed during the confirmation hearing for Justice Samuel Alito in January 2006.

But as often as not, they are routine — almost cavalierly so — as I saw with the Senate Foreign Relations Western Hemisphere subcommittee nomination hearing in May, 2005 for South Carolina Speaker David Wilkins. He became the second Bush ambassador to Canada.

Chair Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican senator, was the sole member on the dais. Wilkins’ advocates, essentially character witnesses, were led by the senior senator from South Carolina, Lindsay Graham, with two senators — Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Jim DeMint of South Carolina — speaking their support.

There was a brief statement about Canada-U.S. relations and his objectives from Speaker Wilkins, a few questions from Senator Coleman on security, ballistic missile defence, border transit and the problems encountered by Minnesota fishermen on Lake of the Woods (a reminder that all politics is local). It was over within 36 minutes.

Full committee and Senate confirmation followed quickly and there was a celebratory send-off for Wilkins in the Benjamin Franklin room on the eighth floor of the State Department. Franklin is considered to be the father of the American foreign service.

The current U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, was a businessman-lawyer from Chicago who served on the Obama fundraising team and then in the Office of Personnel Management of the Obama White House. The latter responsibility meant he was involved in all of Obama’s senior appointments. Jacobson’s own nomination was delayed when then-Democrat Senator Chris Dodd put a hold on consideration of his appointment because of unhappiness with another appointment.

Ambassador Jacobson has done a superb job stick-handling the ‘irritants’ and ‘transactionals’, ranging from granny-chasing IRS agents to ballast water on the St. Lawrence. He also played a lead role in the design, negotiation and implementation (still incomplete) of initiatives aimed at regulatory alignment and making border access easier for people, goods and services. His successor will have to carry this forward.

From a Canadian perspective, we want an ambassador who has the confidence of the president and the ability to pick up the phone and get through to the White House. Jacobson and his immediate predecessors have had this capacity.

Two of them — Jim Blanchard of Michigan (Clinton) and Paul Cellucci of Massachusetts (Bush 43) — were former governors. David Wilkins (Bush 43) had served as speaker of the South Carolina Legislature while Gordon Giffin (Clinton) was a businessman-lawyer and elector from Georgia who had served as a senior advisor to Senator Sam Nunn.

The New York Times recently published a photo of President Obama and senior advisors. They’re all men — and so are the proposed new top foreign and defence policy cabinet members and chief of staff. It is a sensitive point — the White House followed up the NYT photo with one of their own that included women advisors. So we may soon see the first woman named as U.S. ambassador to Canada.

Who that might be? Several names are in play:

  • Christine Gregoire, former Washington state governor and architect with then Premier Gordon Campbell of the ‘smart driver’s license’. She knows Canada very well and would be a logical nominee but she is likely to be offered a cabinet position.
  • Jennifer Granholm, former Michigan Governor and someone very familiar with the border and the Windsor-Detroit Second Crossing, which awaits a presidential permit before construction can begin. Born in Vancouver, she also might be put in cabinet.
  • Olympia Snowe, former three-term moderate Republican Senator from Maine, who chose not to run in the recent election. She knows border issues very well.
  • Michele Flournoy, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy of the United States and founder of the Center for New American Security. She has instant credibility on security issues.
  • Maryscott Greenwood, managing director at a Washington law firm (for which I work) and leading light of the Canadian American Business Council. If Howard Dean had become president in 2004 she likely would have become his ambassador to Canada. She has intimate knowledge of Capitol Hill and experience in Canada-U.S. issues since her time in a Foreign Service posting in Ottawa during the Clinton administration.

As for men?

  • Former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, a folksy but shrewd speaker and strong supporter of the Keystone XL pipeline and the alliance with Canada. He also would be in contention for a cabinet job.
  • John Podesta, former Clinton chief of staff and transition chief for the first Obama administration. Currently chair of the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank that acts as a bullpen for the White House, Podesta is no fan of the oilsands.
  • General (ret.) Chuck Wald, former Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, a fighter pilot and a former Atlanta Falcons draft pick. He is now with Deloitte and active on the defense policy think tank circuit.
  • Anthony Foxx, the Charlotte, North Carolina African-American mayor who hosted the successful Democratic convention in September.

Any one of these individuals could carry on the work of Ambassador Jacobson. That many have held office at the municipal or state level underlines another feature of the American system of government: it’s much more of a progressive ladder for office-holders than in Canada. Four of the last six presidents were governors and this year’s GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, served as governor of Massachusetts.

It all serves as a reminder of the importance of involving all Canadian elected officials, especially those at the federal, state and territorial level, in reaching out to their American counterparts to advance Canadian interests. You never know where those people will wind up. Early connections can pay rich dividends. But it’s up to us to take the initiative.

The Inauguration

      Comments Off on The Inauguration

What Canadians need to know about the second Obama inauguration iPolitics Insight

By | Jan 18, 2013

The American Constitution is a sacred secular document. And so, pursuant to the XXth amendment to the Constitution, at noon on Sunday, January 20th, likely in the Blue Room of the White House, President Barack Obama will place his left hand on two stacked Bibles — one used by Abraham Lincoln and the other by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Raising his right hand before Chief Justice John Roberts, he will “swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” George Washington added the phrase “so help me God” to the 35-word vow and few presidents have departed from this tradition.

Moments beforehand, likely at the Naval Observatory that is the vice presidential home, Vice President Joe Biden will take his oath of office from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Thus will formally begin the second Obama administration.

The Ceremony

The theme of this year’s inauguration is ‘Faith in America’s Future’. The inaugural events begun Thursday night and continue through the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday weekend with the main events on Monday evening.

Because January 20 falls on a Sunday, the inauguration ceremony takes place Monday on the western steps of Capitol Hill. Civil servants in the District of Columbia and adjacent Maryland and Virginia suburbs get a holiday.

Shortly before 11 a.m., the president will travel by limousine from the White House to the Capitol. For the first inauguration, George Washington designed a coach of state with a military escort and an entourage of worthies including foreign emissaries.

Until 1936, the inauguration took place on March 4, originally to give the Electoral College time to meet after the election. After the long lame-duck period between Herbert Hoover’s defeat in November 1932 and Franklin Roosevelt’s inauguration in March 1933, the Constitution was amended to set January 20 for the inauguration and January 3 for the start of the new Congress.

From the inauguration of the first Democrat president, Andrew Jackson, in 1829, the ceremony was performed on the east side of the Capitol Building, facing the Supreme Court and Library of Congress.

Ronald Reagan, with an eye for the camera, decided to move the ceremony to the west side with its splendid vista looking straight down the Mall to the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. It has stayed on the west side of the Capitol ever since.

In 2009, a record 1.8 million people showed up on the National Mall to watch the inauguration of the first African-American President. This year it is estimated the crowd will be 600,000 to 800,000.

The formal ceremony will begin with the U.S. Marine Band (probably playing ‘Hail to the Chief’), followed by a choir and the call to order by New York Senator Chuck Schumer, chair of the Joint Congressional Committee for the Inauguration. Civil rights activist Myrlie Evers-Williams will give the invocation, then the Brooklyn Tabernacle choir will sing. Vice President Biden will then be sworn to office, then James Taylor will sing.

Then comes the presidential oath of office, the Inaugural Address, a song from Kelly Clarkson, a poem from Richard Blanco (a tradition that began with Robert Frost reading ‘The Gift Outright’ to John F. Kennedy in 1961), then a benediction from Reverend Luis Leon, pastor of St. John’s Church of LaFayette Square, the ‘church of the presidents’ since James Madison, before Beyonce sings the national anthem concluding the official ceremony.

After the inauguration, the president, vice president and guests will go back into the Capitol Building for a lunch hosted by the Congress, a tradition that began with the first Eisenhower inaugural.

On the menu this year: steamed lobster with New England clam chowder sauce, followed by hickory-grilled bison with red potato horseradish cake and wild huckleberry reduction and, for dessert, Hudson Valley apple pie with sour cream ice cream, aged cheese and honey.

The Parade

Then comes the parade — a procession of marching bands and floats that started with Thomas Jefferson’s second inaugural when he rode to the Capitol surrounded by mechanics from the Navy Yard and a military band. Teddy Roosevelt’s parade included an estimated 35,000 participants, including the Rough Riders with whom he charged up San Juan Hill.

The parade starts at the Capitol complex, down Constitution to Pennsylvania and finishes up after passing 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, a.k.a. the White House.

The best vantage point is from the roof of the Canadian Embassy. While working there, I watched the second Bush inaugural. Our guests included newly-elected West Virginia Governor (and now Senator) Joe Manchin, former speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John McCain.

McCain had marched as an Annapolis midshipman in the second Eisenhower inaugural. He knows marching bands like no one I have ever met and he provided colour commentary from the balcony for nearly an hour and a half. The level of political detail was mesmerizing — why a particular band from a particular state was selected to march. It was very cold and his daughter, who lived in Toronto, came out and encouraged him to come in from the cold. He smiled and told her that he’d been in “worse situations”.

For austerity reasons, President Barack Obama is cutting back on the number of inaugural balls. There will be two official balls plus a concert honoring military families. The bigger ball, at the Washington Convention Center, is expected to draw 35,000. The entertainment will include Katy Perry, Smokey Robinson, Usher, Alicia Keys, Brad Paisley, Marc Anthony, Stevie Wonder, John Legend, the cast of ‘Glee’ and the youth gospel choir Soul Children of Chicago.

Probably the most rambunctious celebration took place after the inauguration of Andrew Jackson when, according to a contemporary account, “the president was followed from the Capitol to the White House by a motley mob — black and white — who pressed into the mansion to see the new president of the people … They clambered upon the satin furniture with their muddy boots for a better view…”, breaking the china and taking home bits and pieces as souvenirs. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story observed, “I never saw such a mixture. The reign of King Mob seemed triumphant.”

There will be souvenirs aplenty, including a presidential medal, but Canadians will appreciate an inaugural toque as a practical memento.

The next morning there is a prayer service, a tradition that dates back to George Washington. Since Franklin Roosevelt it has been held at the National Cathedral where such notables as Woodrow Wilson, Cordell Hull and Helen Keller are interred.

The Speech

The Inaugural Address sets the vision for the administration.

When successful — as with Lincoln, FDR and JFK — it is a call to action with ringing phrases that become part of our dialogue. For my generation, it is John Kennedy’s “ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

The shortest inaugural speech was that of George Washington. At 135 words, he observed that: “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” The longest address: 8,600 words, delivered by William Henry Harrison in 1841. He caught a cold and died of pneumonia a month later.

At 2,421 words, Obama’s 2009 Inaugural Address was slightly longer than Reagan’s first inaugural, but almost 30 per cent longer than Franklin Roosevelt’s, 80 per cent longer than JFK’s and three and a half times longer than Lincoln’s second inaugural.

There is a three-part pattern to the speeches.

In time of a change in party, they begin with praise for America’s democratic commitment to peaceful and orderly transition. In time of continuity, they underline the American ability to come together after a hard-fought campaign.

The second part describes the problems facing the nation and the world and this segues into the third part — underlining the American capacity for innovation and the strength of American institutions. Americans’ ability to solve problems when they put partisanship aside is critical. As Lyndon Johnson said in 1965, “If we succeed it will not be because of what we have, but it will be because of what we are; not because of what we own, but rather because of what we believe”. Then the president will usually appeal to a Higher Power and continuing trust in God.

The first Obama speech underlined change, the theme of his successful campaign and called for a “new era of responsibility”. Having received a majority of the votes cast (the first Democrat to do so since Jimmy Carter) and with control of both houses of Congress, it all seemed possible.

Obama talked about casting aside the old debates and spoke of a more pragmatic, less ideological approach to government. He acknowledged race but did not make it or civil rights the central theme. He took on the Bush preoccupation with security, saying, “We don’t have to choose between our safety and our ideals.” He told America’s enemies, “We will defeat you.” There was a sense of the potential for transformational change with an emphasis on unity, conversation, expertise, and knowledge.

It’s hard for a second inaugural address to capture the promise of the first. Expect some reference to freedom. It is the 150th anniversary since the Statue of Freedom was placed atop the partly constructed Capitol Dome in 1863, during the Civil War. Lincoln, the first Republican president, is one of Obama’s heroes and the Lincoln collection of speeches has furnished many presidents with quotable quotes.

During the campaign, President Obama talked about the fiscal cliff and need for tax and entitlement reform, immigration reform and, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, gun control and attention to mental health.

Don’t expect them to feature in the inaugural address. It is a vision document.

The blueprint for action comes in the State of the Union address. Speaker John Boehner has invited the president to deliver his legislative agenda before Congress on February 12th.

While Obama may no longer have the star power he enjoyed in 2009, he starts his second term with favourable ratings. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has just published a survey that places his job-approval rating at 52 per cent and his personal favorability at 59 per cent, up from the high 40s.

This is in contrast to the Republican leadership, including Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Republican Party’s image, which reached a 42 per cent favorable rating following the GOP convention, has fallen to 33 per cent.

Obama faces a much more skeptical and frustrated public than he did four years ago: only 33 per cent expect economic conditions to get better over the coming year. Although the public expects more bipartisan cooperation, only 23 per cent expect Republicans and Democrats will work together more in the coming year.

On the nominations of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel

      Comments Off on On the nominations of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel

Excerpted from Embassy New Baird, MacKay US counterparts could be Vietnam vets.by Sneh Duggal Wednesday, 01/09/2013

United States President Barack Obama’s picks for his next secretaries of state and defence are good for Canada because both bring with them years of experience and some knowledge about their northern neighbour, say former diplomats and other observers….

Mr. Obama announced Dec. 21 that he had chosen 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry to become the next secretary of state. Mr. Kerry is a Massachusetts Democrat and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He would replace US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has said she will not seek a second term.

On Jan. 7, the US president also announced his pick of former Republican senator Chuck Hagel to replace US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who announced the same day that he was stepping down.

If their nominations are approved, it would mean that two of the Obama administrations’ most internationally-focused secretaries would be Vietnam War veterans. Mr. Hagel would be the first Vietnam vet to lead the military.

The US Senate would need to confirm both nominees.

Foreign Minister John Baird “looks forward to working with Senator Kerry to continue building on the important relationship with our closest ally, biggest trading partner, and next-door neighbour,” wrote Joseph Lavoie, a spokesperson for Mr. Baird, in an email to Embassy.

Mr. Baird was quick to send out congratulatory remarks to Mr. Kerry on Dec. 21. The foreign minister sent out two tweets: the first one congratulated Mr. Kerry, while the second read that “I would also like to wish @JohnKerry the best of luck during the confirmation process—and I hope to see him soon.”

‘Knowledge of Canada’

Adam Chapnick, deputy director of education at the Canadian Forces College, said it would be important for Canada that Washington push through the confirmation process as quickly as possible.

“We have an interest in a stable, predictable international order, so having either of the positions…unfilled for any significant period of time is therefore not helpful to us,” Mr. Chapnick said.

Former diplomat Colin Robertson said that if their nominations go through, it would be important for Mr. Baird and Defence Minister Peter MacKay to make personal contact with their American counterparts quickly.

This could mean a telephone call of congratulations, “followed by a personal meeting preferably in Washington rather than at a multilateral forum where they will be besieged by others with the same objective,” said Mr. Robertson, who is currently a senior strategic advisor with McKenna, Long and Aldridge LLP.

“I think it’s always good to have experienced knowledgeable practitioners and Hagel and Kerry are both of those, and they also both have some knowledge of Canada,” Mr. Robertson said.

“These are the kinds of appointments that will work to a good relationship, you want people like this, and you don’t want people that are having to learn everything from the start,” he said, noting the importance of both having the president’s confidence.

Those following Canada-US relations and politics say that Mr. Kerry’s approval process should go smoothly…

Mr. Robertson said Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel’s interactions with their Canadian counterparts would likely be more bilateral on the defence side and more multilateral on foreign affairs topics.

He said that in both cases they would start with issues such as what is happening in Syria, how to deal with Iran, and then other places like Libya, Afghanistan, and Myanmar…

On Border Update

      Comments Off on On Border Update

Excerpted from Border deal just part of agenda in ‘make or break’ year by JOHN IBBITSON

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail Monday, Dec. 17 2012

Few paid any attention on Friday to the one-year report card on the new Canada-U.S. border agreement. The terrible shootings at Newtown understandably shoved everything else aside.

That report shows the Harper government and the Obama administration still struggling to fulfill the promise of the Beyond the Border agreement on travel, trade and security.

Trade is the issue on which the Conservatives want to be judged. (They certainly prefer it to military procurement.) And 2013 is shaping up as the pivotal year in casting that judgment.

The Harper government will either open Canada more fully to the world, or we’ll simply muddle along. In this economic environment, muddling along simply won’t do.

Among other things, rules are now in place so that passengers with cross-border connections no longer have to check their baggage twice, and there is the pilot project that permits imports bound for the U.S. market to be examined in Prince Rupert, B.C., and then shipped south with no further inspections on the principle of “cleared once, accepted twice.”

But John Manley, the former foreign minister who now heads the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, observed that “the two governments are still negotiating the terms of a comprehensive preclearance system for land, rail and marine cargo even though that plan was supposed to be finalized,” by this month.

He wants both sides to put their back into accelerating and expanding a continental inspection regime.

Not fair, responded David Jacobson, the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

“The overwhelming majority of what we said we were going to do, we did, and for the ones that aren’t on schedule, there were good and valid reasons why they didn’t get done,” Mr. Jacobson told The Globe’s Paul Koring.

But making progress on thinning the Canada-U.S. border is only one aspect of an agenda that will make 2013 a “make or break year,” said Colin Robertson, the former diplomat who now studies and writes on trade issues.

The Harper government is also supposed to be in the very last stages of concluding a comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union. The final issues – on agriculture exports and intellectual property protections – are proving to be the most difficult. If a deal is to be done, ’twere well it were done quickly, for the Europeans and Americans are now looking to negotiate an agreement, and once those talks are started, the Europeans will focus on nothing else.

Canada is finally part of the even more ambitious Trans Pacific Partnership talks, which would create a new free-trade sphere that would link nations in North and South America, the Pacific and Asia. An accord will be reached in 2013, or not at all. And Canada and India have committed to concluding a free-trade agreement in 2013.

The Conservatives face plenty of resistance to their trade agenda. For every action to make it easier and cheaper to sends goods across the Canada-U.S. border, there’s the reaction of a Congress or an administration looking for new fees and charges to help offset the chronic budget deficit.

Powerful lobbies continue to press for agricultural, pharmaceutical and other protections, which complicate trade agreements.

Still, the Conservatives are trying. As Mr. Robertson observes, the report card can point to an increased willingness on the part of Canadian and U.S. officials to harmonize safety and other regulations, so that products manufactured in one country can be sold in both.

If the Harper government can continue to make progress on the Canada-U.S. border, conclude a trade deal with Europe, another with India, and maybe be part of a Trans Pacific agreement, that will make 2013 a good year.

Excerpted from  New border security deal has made Canadians, Americans safer and better off: U.S. ambassador by John Ivison National Post Dec 14, 2012

OTTAWA — Canadians and Americans are safer and better off as a result of the perimeter security deal signed last December by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama, says the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

David Jacobson pointed to two initiatives he said have increased efficiency at the border – reduction in wait times at airports because of the NEXUS trusted traveller program and mutual recognition of air cargo that means less missing baggage on connecting flights.

He said the choice is not between security or efficiency. “They tend to be the same thing.”

Mr. Jacobson was speaking as the two governments reported “significant progress” on their plan that aims to “thin” their border.

In the first annual report on the “Beyond the Border” and regulatory co-operation programs, they said there has been improved coordination on border management, cyber-security, the NEXUS plan and air cargo security.

“This puts real meat on the bones of what the President and the Prime Minister promised. And we aren’t done yet,” Mr. Jacobson said.

John Manley, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, was less glowing in his assessment.

“To be perfectly honest, it’s more promising than actual results. There are signs that good things are happening but it will require more work,” he said.

He said it remains a difficult challenge to get sovereign nations to think about fluidity at the border as if it were an inter-state or inter-provincial boundary.

Free trade has reduced tariff barriers, but both sides still charge fees for some services, like product inspections.

The council pointed out the goal of pre-clearing goods on the factory floor remains unfulfilled. At the launch last year, both sides touted a pilot project in Prince Rupert, B.C., where goods landed were checked and loaded at the port, then shipped by rail to Chicago, without being re-inspected at the border in Minnesota.

Mr. Jacobson said the need for legislation on both sides of the border has slowed down the rollout of that initiative.

Colin Robertson, a former diplomat and close observer of the Canada-U.S. relationship, said there was nothing new in the progress report but it was a useful taking stock exercise. He said it was significant “Beyond the Borders” still bears the imprimateur of the U.S. President, which sends the message down the chain of command it is a priority.

The target when the deal was struck was to reduce border costs by $16-billion a year – or 1% of gross domestic product.

Mr. Jacobson said the focus on the border highlights a trading relationship that is going from strength to strength. Two-way trade between Canada and the U.S. rose by 38% — or $181-billion — in the last two years.

“Last year alone, Canadian exports to the U.S. increased by $41-billion,” he said.

“Canadian exports to China increased by $4-billion. I think it was Mark Twain who said ‘rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.’ ”

Beyond the Border and Regulatory Cooperation A Year On

      Comments Off on Beyond the Border and Regulatory Cooperation A Year On

Beyond the Border, 2013: inching toward a deal iPolitics Insight

By | Dec 12, 2012 9:01 pm

It’s been a year since Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama announced framework agreements on Beyond the Border and the new Regulatory Cooperation Council. While most of the subsequent work has been below the waterline of media interest, let’s look at the progress to date.

Access to the United States market — still the largest in the world and, for Canadians, the most accessible — is an enduring Canadian objective dating back to when we were British North America. A European-style union is not in the cards but a more integrated continental economy, one which includes Mexico, makes a whole lot of sense.

Access to the U.S. has been the trade priority of every Canadian prime minister. Our domestic market is too small to generate the sales we need to put bread on the table and pay for those things, such as medicare, which define what it is to be Canadian.

Defence production led the way under Mackenzie King and Roosevelt. It was followed by the Auto Pact (Pearson and LBJ), the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Mulroney and Reagan) and NAFTA (which transitioned from Mulroney/George H.W. Bush to Chretien/Clinton). Some relief from the security curtain imposed after 9-11 was provided by the Manley-Ridge ‘Smart Border Accord’ but the border continued to thicken. The Security and Prosperity Partnership — started by George W. Bush, Paul Martin and Mexico’s Vicente Fox — came to naught.

Mr. Harper had the border on the agenda when Mr. Obama came to Ottawa just after his first inauguration but the issue lost traction. The prime minister had to personally put it back on the president’s agenda – another vindication of Brian Mulroney’s axiom: “If you don’t have a friendly and constructive personal relationship with the president of the United States, nothing is going to happen.”

It is estimated border inefficiencies cost the Canadian economy 1 per cent of GDP, or $16 billion a year — roughly $500 for each Canadian.

So what do our two nations have to show for their efforts a year on, besides some frequent flyer points for civil servants doing the capital shuffle (and not a lot of those, given the bite of austerity)? Three areas stand out: getting goods across the border, easing border congestion, and the process itself.

Supply chain dynamics increasingly account for most of our trade in things like trains, planes and automobiles, soup, and the ubiquitous BlackBerry. Just-in-time delivery is especially critical for the auto trade, still our biggest traded manufacture.

Getting stuff efficiently and quickly across the border is vital for manufacturers. Global production means that more and more of our parts come from Asian workshops. The port closest to those suppliers is Prince Rupert, B.C., where containers are put on trains and shipped south, passing through Portal, Sask., enroute to the industrial hub around Chicago.

Rail cars crossing the border have long been screened for illegal migrants as well as chemical or radiological content — but they’ve still been subject to secondary inspection. Southbound, rail is now handling about 60 per cent of the surface volume (trucks carry the other 40 per cent). Containers arriving at U.S. ports still avoid this kind of rigorous inspection.

Now, joint inspections in Prince Rupert allow faster transit — giving real effect to the principle ‘inspected once, approved twice’. Montreal likely will be the next pilot port for this fast-tracked inspection service, with Halifax and Vancouver to follow. The value of integrated gateways was demonstrated recently when Hurricane Sandy obliged the diversion of cargo to Halifax from East Coast U.S. ports. Halifax was able to double its intake and, between re-transit by sea and more rail cars for land travel, the containers reached their southern destinations with minimal disruption.

For the frequent traveller there are now designated NEXUS lines at most major airports giving ‘fast-pass’ cardholders one less travel headache.

The challenge will be to preserve the pre-clearance facilities at Canadian airports as the fiscal crunch bears down on U.S. departments. Unlike other foreigners, we can remind the Americans that Canadians continue to flock south of the border to spend their money, making more than 21 million visits to the U.S. last year (including 59,619 nights in Florida).

Canadians represent more than a third of all foreign visits to the U.S. Canadians’ annual spending in the U.S. — $24 billion in 2011 — dwarfs the sum spent by Americans stationed in Canada.

We are also beginning to make the border more accessible by constructing new lanes and building facilities designed for easier flow in places like St. Stephen, N.B., and Calais, Maine.

Despite recent blocking efforts, it appears the vital second crossing between Windsor and Detroit is back on track. The trade that crosses the Ambassador Bridge is worth more than all U.S. trade with Japan. National security alone would argue for presidential approval of the necessary waiver and a quick start to bridge construction, which will create thousands of jobs.

The bureaucratic process set in place by the initiatives — especially on the regulatory side — is very promising. Here the Americans are ahead of us. A pair of Executive Orders (the equivalent of cabinet directives) oblige U.S. regulators to demonstrate why they would diverge from complementarity in new regulations with regulatory partners like Canada.

Working groups across the current designated areas are using a sensible schematic in looking at new rules:

  • Is it really required?
  • Is there another way to address the requirement (i.e., data sharing)?
  • For those deemed necessary, can administrative burdens be reduced or eliminated?

There is also a process to re-examine old rules and bring them into line with the new approach. The best net effect would be a change in attitude among those who administer the rules. The current enforcement mentality should evolve into one of common sense and risk-management aimed at expediting people and goods. This alone would be a very positive outcome.

A shrewd Canadian ‘ask’ was for an inventory of border fees and charges. As the U.S. approaches its ‘fiscal cliff’, it’s almost certain that there will be an effort to find alternate revenue sources such as the $5.50 fee levied last October on Canadians entering the U.S. by air or sea as ‘compensation’ for revenue lost under the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. We need to be vigilant about new border fees.

After nearly seven years in office, Prime Minister Harper has got to be thinking of his legacy. Beyond the Border and regulatory cooperation would be an historic achievement.

But President Obama also needs this deal. He has pledged to double American exports. The twin initiatives with Canada, America’s biggest trading partner, will advance that goal but it will require continued attention from the president to make it happen.

At a time when questions are being asked about the direction of American policy, the ability of the U.S. to deliver on a deal with Canada will not be lost on officials in Mexico City, the partners in the Trans Pacific Partnership and friends and allies everywhere.