Dear Charlie,
An interesting concept, "Free Trade".
An article from:http://www.aacb.com/index.asp
"11/9/2007 Security and prosperity?
No thanks, business tells U.S. Commerce Secretary
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez seemed almost embarrassed as he paused during a speech last week to set the record straight about his country's Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico.
"There is no secret plan to a create a North American union or a common currency or intrude on the sovereignty of any partner nations," the former Kellogg Co. executive assured members of the Canadian and U.S. chambers of commerce, along with a cluster of U.S. and Canadian government officials.
A monster NAFTA highway from Tijuana to Tuktoyaktuk? Ain't happening either, he insisted.
No matter how often he repeats the disclaimer, "calls and e-mails" still flood the Commerce Department, a frustrated Mr. Gutierrez acknowledged.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was born more than two years ago at a North American free-trade leaders' summit in Waco, Tex.
The reality of the SPP and the perception among its critics couldn't be farther apart.
To a rag-tag collection of mainly U.S. groups from both ends of the political spectrum, the SPP is a secret plot by the Bush administration and Big Business to wipe out borders between the three countries, tap Canada's oil and throw a security cordon around it all.
The reality on the ground is quite different. As most travellers and businesses know, the border has become considerably less easy - or "thicker and stickier," as Canadian Chamber of Commerce president Perrin Beatty put it.
Canada, which was the main architect of the SPP, saw the deal as a way to undo some of the economic damage caused by the post-Sept. 11 security angst and ward off new restrictions. To make the SPP more palatable to skeptical Americans, it was framed as a partnership to promote safe trade. Mexico was added to the mix, almost as an afterthought.
But many of its modest ambitions remain unfulfilled. And measured by the obstacles to travel and commerce - new and planned - the SPP is a disappointment.
"There is great confusion and aversion to travel here," complained Roger Dow, president of the U.S. Travel Industry Association. He cited new visa and passport hassles and fees.
Overseas travel to the United States has plunged 17 per cent since the 9/11 attacks, even as global travel has grown. That has cost the U.S. economy $94-billion (U.S.) in spending, 200,000 jobs and $16-billion in tax revenue, according to the Discover America Partnership, a U.S. travel industry group.
"Don't confuse long lines and inefficiency with better security," Mr. Dow said.
Even with the U.S. dollar tanking, the Commerce Department is projecting that the number of overseas visits to the U.S. won't regain 2000 levels until 2010.
At the same event in Washington where Mr. Gutierrez issued his SPP disclaimer, several business people complained about the many ways the border has become tougher.
This year was a "summer from hell" along the border, with some of the longest waits since 2001 for cars and trucks, said Stan Korosec, vice-president of operations of the Blue Water Bridge, which links Sarnia, Ont., and Port Huron, Mich. He said U.S. border guards are asking more questions, doing more extensive database checks and sending more trucks to secondary inspection.
And that may be a prelude to what happens next year when the U.S. will begin requiring passports for most people crossing Canada-U.S. land borders. "We ain't seen nothing yet," he warned.
Executives of Microsoft Corp. complained about the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system, which is preventing the software maker from hiring the skilled foreign workers it needs, from Canada and elsewhere. A lobbyist for Campbell Soup Co. likewise warned that proposed new food inspection fees could hit it and other companies with plants in both countries particularly hard.
Even users of two signature SPP programs - the Nexus safe traveller card and the FAST/Express lane for prescreened trucks - are running into increasing flak at the border. Nexus users, for example, can't renew their cards and must reapply every five years.
Nativist and protectionist sentiment is running high on Capitol Hill these days, pointed out Randel Johnson, the Chamber of Commerce's top lobbyist on border and immigration issues. And he scoffed at the suggestion that Americans are ready to embrace the idea of a North American security perimeter.
"We're probably 100 years away from seeing that," he said.
In the current environment, a wall on the 49th parallel seems more likely than a North American security blanket. And that's not much of a partnership.
Source: The Globe And Mail by Barrie McKenna % CTVglobemedia"
11/14/2007 Cargo Scanning Program Sparks International Debate Over U.S. Homeland Security Policy
The recent implementation of a long-awaited U.S. homeland security program has reinvigorated debate over the international consequences of controversial cargo security legislation passed earlier this summer.
The Department of Homeland Security's Secure Freight Initiative, co-managed by the Customs and Border Protection office (CBP) and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, began testing Oct. 12 whether scanning 100 percent of sea cargo destined for the United States is feasible and effective for enhancing supply chain security. The tests are taking place at the United Kingdom's Southampton Container Terminals, Pakistan's Port Qasim and Honduras' Puerto Cortez, with CBP set to release a report about the program's successes and failures next April.
However, many public and industry officials both in the United States and abroad say Congress and the president got ahead of themselves and possibly made a grave mistake by mandating 100 percent scanning of all U.S.-bound cargo originating in foreign ports before knowing the full results of the pilot tests.
Despite his opposition to the mandate, President Bush signed the "Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007," the omnibus bill that mandates 100 percent scanning by 2012, on Aug. 3. Although presumed to make the United States safer, experts contend the stipulation could actually harm U.S. security by further alienating the United States' international partners, who see the law as a unilateral mandate and have repeatedly called it the "wrong approach."
"One-hundred percent scanning is not the right way for multiple reasons," said Hubertus Erlen, chairman of the International Affairs Committee of BUSINESSEUROPE, a confederation of European businesses, at an Oct. 31 Transatlantic trade conference in Washington, D.C. "Even if the technology could be implemented and all the personnel hired and trained, the transatlantic maritime community would be burdened with enormous additional costs and leave uncertainties in the supply chain."
"It's like smoking in a gasoline station. It does not always explode, but when it does, it's very damaging," European Commission Director General of Tax and Customs Robert Verrue told reporters after he addressed the conference audience.
Not only are many federal officials and industry insiders warning that the flow of commerce could slow in the best case scenario or completely cease in the worst case, but relations between the United States and its international partners could worsen during a time when the United States' reputation around the world has already suffered due to increasingly unpopular policies in Iraq.
Speaking at an Oct. 16 hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Stephen Caldwell of the Government Accountability Office warned that the 100 percent scanning mandate could harm the partnerships that CBP spent years forming with various European countries and key international allies like Pakistan and China.
"One of the most important areas of progress that CBP has made thus far is reaching out to other countries," said Caldwell. "The partnerships are critical because, as we know, the federal government can't do it all by themselves. But there are some signs that some of these critical partnerships are starting to fray."
Besides viewing the new law as a uniquely U.S.-imposed unilateral mandate, many foreign governments worry implementation of 100 percent scanning could unravel the commonly accepted Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade Framework, often referred to as the SAFE Framework.
The SAFE Framework emerged in June 2005 from the World Customs Organization, a multinational organization in which the United States has been a leader. It advocates a risk-management approach to global supply chain security, with one of the main goals being to establish a network of "mutual recognition," which allows two or more countries to rely on each other's security regimes to ensure any cargo shipped between them is free of threats. Under this framework, countries would establish their own cargo screening and scanning regimes and manage them at a commonly accepted level set by the WCO.
So far, the United States has signed just one "mutual recognition" agreement with New Zealand. If CBP continues on its current risk-based approach, there are plans to make similar deals with the European Union, Jordan and Japan in the near future. However, according to Caldwell, 100 percent scanning could jeopardize further mutual recognition agreements and the targeted, risk-based approach to security that the international community prefers.
"CBP may have difficulty requiring 100 percent scanning while also maintaining a risk-based security approach that has been developed with many of its international partners," said Caldwell. "Furthermore, many U.S. and international customs officials we have spoken to, including officials from the World Customs Organization, have stated that the 100 percent scanning requirement is contrary to the SAFE Framework developed and implemented by the international customs community, including CBP."
Additionally, both federal government and shipping industry officials worry that the 100 percent scanning mandate will anger U.S. trading partners enough for them to demand reciprocal agreements, meaning all cargo leaving U.S. ports would have to undergo physical inspection. According to U.S. port officials, U.S. ports are not equipped with the manpower or technology to handle such a request.
"There is great concern that if the U.S. requires foreign ports to perform 100 percent scanning of all containers destined for the U.S., foreign governments could require the same from U.S. ports through reciprocity," said Wade Battles, managing director of the Port of Houston Authority, at an Oct. 30 hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee. "The Port authority does not have space nor does CBP have the personnel to scan all export containers from the Port of Houston Authority."
So far, however, U.S. trading partners have given no indication that they would request reciprocity, citing the common maxim of "two wrongs don't make a right."
"We are not interested in imposing additional barriers to trade and will do our outmost, in cooperation with the business community, to find a politically and practically viable alternative to 100 percent [scanning]," said Maria Assimakopoulou, a European Commission spokeswoman, via email. "We strongly believe that the way forward is to pursue the work on a multi-layered, risk-based approach and enhanced cooperation toward mutual recognition of security standards and trade partnership programs."
Many U.S. legislators remain staunchly in support of the legislation, however, saying that it will not only spur the development of new technology, but that it is the only 100 percent reliable way to ensure weapons of mass destruction or terrorists do not enter U.S. borders via containerized sea cargo. "Failure to screen and seal all cargo overseas doesn't just 'miss the boat,' it also could miss the bomb, with devastating consequences," said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the mandate's most steadfast proponents. "This bill will close the dangerous cargo loophole."
Marissa Payne is a reporter for the Homeland Defense and Security Monitor. She has previously written about Russia and former Soviet states for World Politics Review.
Source: WorldPoliticsReview
An interesting concept, "Free Trade".
An article from:http://www.aacb.com/index.asp
"11/9/2007 Security and prosperity?
No thanks, business tells U.S. Commerce Secretary
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez seemed almost embarrassed as he paused during a speech last week to set the record straight about his country's Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico.
"There is no secret plan to a create a North American union or a common currency or intrude on the sovereignty of any partner nations," the former Kellogg Co. executive assured members of the Canadian and U.S. chambers of commerce, along with a cluster of U.S. and Canadian government officials.
A monster NAFTA highway from Tijuana to Tuktoyaktuk? Ain't happening either, he insisted.
No matter how often he repeats the disclaimer, "calls and e-mails" still flood the Commerce Department, a frustrated Mr. Gutierrez acknowledged.
The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was born more than two years ago at a North American free-trade leaders' summit in Waco, Tex.
The reality of the SPP and the perception among its critics couldn't be farther apart.
To a rag-tag collection of mainly U.S. groups from both ends of the political spectrum, the SPP is a secret plot by the Bush administration and Big Business to wipe out borders between the three countries, tap Canada's oil and throw a security cordon around it all.
The reality on the ground is quite different. As most travellers and businesses know, the border has become considerably less easy - or "thicker and stickier," as Canadian Chamber of Commerce president Perrin Beatty put it.
Canada, which was the main architect of the SPP, saw the deal as a way to undo some of the economic damage caused by the post-Sept. 11 security angst and ward off new restrictions. To make the SPP more palatable to skeptical Americans, it was framed as a partnership to promote safe trade. Mexico was added to the mix, almost as an afterthought.
But many of its modest ambitions remain unfulfilled. And measured by the obstacles to travel and commerce - new and planned - the SPP is a disappointment.
"There is great confusion and aversion to travel here," complained Roger Dow, president of the U.S. Travel Industry Association. He cited new visa and passport hassles and fees.
Overseas travel to the United States has plunged 17 per cent since the 9/11 attacks, even as global travel has grown. That has cost the U.S. economy $94-billion (U.S.) in spending, 200,000 jobs and $16-billion in tax revenue, according to the Discover America Partnership, a U.S. travel industry group.
"Don't confuse long lines and inefficiency with better security," Mr. Dow said.
Even with the U.S. dollar tanking, the Commerce Department is projecting that the number of overseas visits to the U.S. won't regain 2000 levels until 2010.
At the same event in Washington where Mr. Gutierrez issued his SPP disclaimer, several business people complained about the many ways the border has become tougher.
This year was a "summer from hell" along the border, with some of the longest waits since 2001 for cars and trucks, said Stan Korosec, vice-president of operations of the Blue Water Bridge, which links Sarnia, Ont., and Port Huron, Mich. He said U.S. border guards are asking more questions, doing more extensive database checks and sending more trucks to secondary inspection.
And that may be a prelude to what happens next year when the U.S. will begin requiring passports for most people crossing Canada-U.S. land borders. "We ain't seen nothing yet," he warned.
Executives of Microsoft Corp. complained about the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system, which is preventing the software maker from hiring the skilled foreign workers it needs, from Canada and elsewhere. A lobbyist for Campbell Soup Co. likewise warned that proposed new food inspection fees could hit it and other companies with plants in both countries particularly hard.
Even users of two signature SPP programs - the Nexus safe traveller card and the FAST/Express lane for prescreened trucks - are running into increasing flak at the border. Nexus users, for example, can't renew their cards and must reapply every five years.
Nativist and protectionist sentiment is running high on Capitol Hill these days, pointed out Randel Johnson, the Chamber of Commerce's top lobbyist on border and immigration issues. And he scoffed at the suggestion that Americans are ready to embrace the idea of a North American security perimeter.
"We're probably 100 years away from seeing that," he said.
In the current environment, a wall on the 49th parallel seems more likely than a North American security blanket. And that's not much of a partnership.
Source: The Globe And Mail by Barrie McKenna % CTVglobemedia"
11/14/2007 Cargo Scanning Program Sparks International Debate Over U.S. Homeland Security Policy
The recent implementation of a long-awaited U.S. homeland security program has reinvigorated debate over the international consequences of controversial cargo security legislation passed earlier this summer.
The Department of Homeland Security's Secure Freight Initiative, co-managed by the Customs and Border Protection office (CBP) and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, began testing Oct. 12 whether scanning 100 percent of sea cargo destined for the United States is feasible and effective for enhancing supply chain security. The tests are taking place at the United Kingdom's Southampton Container Terminals, Pakistan's Port Qasim and Honduras' Puerto Cortez, with CBP set to release a report about the program's successes and failures next April.
However, many public and industry officials both in the United States and abroad say Congress and the president got ahead of themselves and possibly made a grave mistake by mandating 100 percent scanning of all U.S.-bound cargo originating in foreign ports before knowing the full results of the pilot tests.
Despite his opposition to the mandate, President Bush signed the "Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007," the omnibus bill that mandates 100 percent scanning by 2012, on Aug. 3. Although presumed to make the United States safer, experts contend the stipulation could actually harm U.S. security by further alienating the United States' international partners, who see the law as a unilateral mandate and have repeatedly called it the "wrong approach."
"One-hundred percent scanning is not the right way for multiple reasons," said Hubertus Erlen, chairman of the International Affairs Committee of BUSINESSEUROPE, a confederation of European businesses, at an Oct. 31 Transatlantic trade conference in Washington, D.C. "Even if the technology could be implemented and all the personnel hired and trained, the transatlantic maritime community would be burdened with enormous additional costs and leave uncertainties in the supply chain."
"It's like smoking in a gasoline station. It does not always explode, but when it does, it's very damaging," European Commission Director General of Tax and Customs Robert Verrue told reporters after he addressed the conference audience.
Not only are many federal officials and industry insiders warning that the flow of commerce could slow in the best case scenario or completely cease in the worst case, but relations between the United States and its international partners could worsen during a time when the United States' reputation around the world has already suffered due to increasingly unpopular policies in Iraq.
Speaking at an Oct. 16 hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Stephen Caldwell of the Government Accountability Office warned that the 100 percent scanning mandate could harm the partnerships that CBP spent years forming with various European countries and key international allies like Pakistan and China.
"One of the most important areas of progress that CBP has made thus far is reaching out to other countries," said Caldwell. "The partnerships are critical because, as we know, the federal government can't do it all by themselves. But there are some signs that some of these critical partnerships are starting to fray."
Besides viewing the new law as a uniquely U.S.-imposed unilateral mandate, many foreign governments worry implementation of 100 percent scanning could unravel the commonly accepted Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade Framework, often referred to as the SAFE Framework.
The SAFE Framework emerged in June 2005 from the World Customs Organization, a multinational organization in which the United States has been a leader. It advocates a risk-management approach to global supply chain security, with one of the main goals being to establish a network of "mutual recognition," which allows two or more countries to rely on each other's security regimes to ensure any cargo shipped between them is free of threats. Under this framework, countries would establish their own cargo screening and scanning regimes and manage them at a commonly accepted level set by the WCO.
So far, the United States has signed just one "mutual recognition" agreement with New Zealand. If CBP continues on its current risk-based approach, there are plans to make similar deals with the European Union, Jordan and Japan in the near future. However, according to Caldwell, 100 percent scanning could jeopardize further mutual recognition agreements and the targeted, risk-based approach to security that the international community prefers.
"CBP may have difficulty requiring 100 percent scanning while also maintaining a risk-based security approach that has been developed with many of its international partners," said Caldwell. "Furthermore, many U.S. and international customs officials we have spoken to, including officials from the World Customs Organization, have stated that the 100 percent scanning requirement is contrary to the SAFE Framework developed and implemented by the international customs community, including CBP."
Additionally, both federal government and shipping industry officials worry that the 100 percent scanning mandate will anger U.S. trading partners enough for them to demand reciprocal agreements, meaning all cargo leaving U.S. ports would have to undergo physical inspection. According to U.S. port officials, U.S. ports are not equipped with the manpower or technology to handle such a request.
"There is great concern that if the U.S. requires foreign ports to perform 100 percent scanning of all containers destined for the U.S., foreign governments could require the same from U.S. ports through reciprocity," said Wade Battles, managing director of the Port of Houston Authority, at an Oct. 30 hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee. "The Port authority does not have space nor does CBP have the personnel to scan all export containers from the Port of Houston Authority."
So far, however, U.S. trading partners have given no indication that they would request reciprocity, citing the common maxim of "two wrongs don't make a right."
"We are not interested in imposing additional barriers to trade and will do our outmost, in cooperation with the business community, to find a politically and practically viable alternative to 100 percent [scanning]," said Maria Assimakopoulou, a European Commission spokeswoman, via email. "We strongly believe that the way forward is to pursue the work on a multi-layered, risk-based approach and enhanced cooperation toward mutual recognition of security standards and trade partnership programs."
Many U.S. legislators remain staunchly in support of the legislation, however, saying that it will not only spur the development of new technology, but that it is the only 100 percent reliable way to ensure weapons of mass destruction or terrorists do not enter U.S. borders via containerized sea cargo. "Failure to screen and seal all cargo overseas doesn't just 'miss the boat,' it also could miss the bomb, with devastating consequences," said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), one of the mandate's most steadfast proponents. "This bill will close the dangerous cargo loophole."
Marissa Payne is a reporter for the Homeland Defense and Security Monitor. She has previously written about Russia and former Soviet states for World Politics Review.
Source: WorldPoliticsReview