Security trumps common sense
Mar. 20, 2006. 01:00 AM
How far will the U.S. government continue down the costly, unneeded and unproductive path of ever-greater "border security" at the expense of common sense?
The latest foolishness is a scheme to deploy machine guns on board the 11 U.S. Coast
Guard cutters that patrol the Great Lakes.
The weapons, which fire 600 rounds per minute, were not even imagined when the young republic and the British empire agreed, as part of an 1817 treaty, to keep the lakes demilitarized: neither side, says the Rush-Bagot agreement, will deploy more than four 18-pound cannon on the lakes.
In 2003, we now learn, Washington asked Ottawa to in effect issue a waiver for the machine guns; Ottawa agreed. This could be worse: The United States could have just gone ahead and mounted the rapid-fire weapons and relied on being able to argue they are less than cannon.
But the broader spirit of the accord is falling victim to Americans' security obsession since Sept. 11, 2001. The machine-gun issue is fairly trivial beside the much more worrisome requirement for passports or equivalent for admission to the United States, even for U.S. citizens.
The Conference Board of Canada, a policy think-tank, says the requirement will cost U.S. businesses $785 million (U.S.) a year and Canadian businesses double that amount.
The problem is that many people say they will just forgo cross-border visits, rather than pay for passports. The U.S. is considering a new voluntary identity card for border use by its own citizens. This would cost $55 (U.S.), less than a passport, but would be more secure than a driver's licence. Canada might do something similar.
But how many in each country would still refuse to pay? Survey results suggest at least one-third of those without passports in each country would be less likely than now to cross the border when the new requirement for land crossings kicks in on Jan. 1, 2008.
This passport requirement might well be disastrous for tourism and for small businesses located near the border, on both sides.
Against these costs, what benefits are expected? For Canada, there will be none. For the U.S. there will be, in theory, some additional security, if you presume those of malign intent are incapable of forging passports or otherwise sneaking across the border. In practice, genuine improvements in security seem unlikely.
Over and over the U.S. government has told us security now trumps trade. Well, it's their country. But from gunboats to passports, it looks from here as if our U.S. friends are letting security trump common sense.
How far will the U.S. government continue down the costly, unneeded and unproductive path of ever-greater "border security" at the expense of common sense?
The latest foolishness is a scheme to deploy machine guns on board the 11 U.S. Coast
Guard cutters that patrol the Great Lakes.
The weapons, which fire 600 rounds per minute, were not even imagined when the young republic and the British empire agreed, as part of an 1817 treaty, to keep the lakes demilitarized: neither side, says the Rush-Bagot agreement, will deploy more than four 18-pound cannon on the lakes.
In 2003, we now learn, Washington asked Ottawa to in effect issue a waiver for the machine guns; Ottawa agreed. This could be worse: The United States could have just gone ahead and mounted the rapid-fire weapons and relied on being able to argue they are less than cannon.
But the broader spirit of the accord is falling victim to Americans' security obsession since Sept. 11, 2001. The machine-gun issue is fairly trivial beside the much more worrisome requirement for passports or equivalent for admission to the United States, even for U.S. citizens.
The Conference Board of Canada, a policy think-tank, says the requirement will cost U.S. businesses $785 million (U.S.) a year and Canadian businesses double that amount.
The problem is that many people say they will just forgo cross-border visits, rather than pay for passports. The U.S. is considering a new voluntary identity card for border use by its own citizens. This would cost $55 (U.S.), less than a passport, but would be more secure than a driver's licence. Canada might do something similar.
But how many in each country would still refuse to pay? Survey results suggest at least one-third of those without passports in each country would be less likely than now to cross the border when the new requirement for land crossings kicks in on Jan. 1, 2008.
This passport requirement might well be disastrous for tourism and for small businesses located near the border, on both sides.
Against these costs, what benefits are expected? For Canada, there will be none. For the U.S. there will be, in theory, some additional security, if you presume those of malign intent are incapable of forging passports or otherwise sneaking across the border. In practice, genuine improvements in security seem unlikely.
Over and over the U.S. government has told us security now trumps trade. Well, it's their country. But from gunboats to passports, it looks from here as if our U.S. friends are letting security trump common sense.
posted by Traveller at 9:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home