The SPP's Death Knell has Sounded
The Security and Prosperity Partnership, as we knew it, is dead. May it rest in peace. Laden with the weight of its own secrecy, and the tainted legacy of creator George W. Bush North America's leaders refused even to breathe its name at the recent trilateral summit in Guadalajara, Mexico. The SPP's final death certificate appeared on the grouping's US government-run website following Guadalajara, which declared the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is no longer an active initiative."
Yet trilateral diplomacy appears to have piqued the interest of President Barack Obama, and word in Washington is that a new organization is on its way. While business is expected to retain its front-row seat, sources close to the White House say the labour movement and civil society will be key players in a forum that is much broader and more transparent than its predecessor.
With the fine details in flux, experts say Canada, which will play host to the Three Amigos next year, has a chance to help reconcieve the architecture of trilateral co-operation, which is considered more necessary than ever before.
Weighing the Pros and Cons
"The SPP as SPP might be dead, but what the SPP represents, the issues that it has addressed, and the people that are involved in addressing those issues could not be more alive," says Tom D'Aquino, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and a veteran continental player and big SPP supporter.
Mr. D'Aquino says co-operation on international trade and financial regulation, border policy, health and environmental issues, and a host of other matters "will continue without fail."
"There is no question that the Obama administration is rethinking the architecture of trilateralism in North America," he says. "However, anyone who thinks that the trilateral priorities have suddenly disappeared...is dreaming in Technicolor."
Former American ambassador to Canada David Wilkins, who was sent north by Mr. Bush, says he remains a big supporter of the SPP process.
"I think it's just as important, if not more important, today than the day president Bush suggested we have it," he says, noting the current economic troubles facing the world, including the US and Canada. "The fact that you have a protocol of the three American leaders to meet and exchange ideas and deal with common problems—I think it's very positive for all three countries, and it's necessary."
Former Canadian prime minister Paul Martin, who was instrumental in founding the SPP in 2005, says something must fill the gap left by the SPP.
"The SPP agenda may change its name, but I don't believe it, as a vehicle that really serves Canada, has in any way, shape or form come to an end," he says.
Mr. Martin says the basic arguments for a trilateral co-operation forum remain as compelling as they did when the SPP was founded.
First, he says, "there was a recognition that we were going to need a stronger North America in order to face the competition from the large, mega economies China and India." Furthermore, he says, there are a number of gaps in NAFTA, and that having a place to work out disputes outside NAFTA's formal dispute resolution mechanism is important.
Mr. Martin says that perhaps the SPP's greatest benefit came from the participation of the Canadian business community, which proved itself able to convince American firms to lobby Congress on issues of mutual interest.
"Most large American companies, or even the mid-sized American companies, really didn't gain from congressional political pressure being brought to bear because of something happening in one city or one state," he says. "So our ability to have the Canadian business community down there essentially putting pressure on the American business community to put pressure on Congress was a hugely powerful thing."
In a place where all politics is local, Mr. Martin says, this indirect approach is very effective.
"To have American business interests speaking to Congress, saying 'For God's sake, don't put a blockage at the border' was incredible," he says. "Certainly the American business community can deal with Congress better than anybody, so our ability to work with the American business community was immensely valuable."
While these men, some of the most central players in the SPP process, are convinced of the SPP's value, not all agree.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May is one of the SPP's greatest detractors, and she says that in her travels across the country, Canadians never failed to vent their suspicions and fears that the process was a "Trojan horse" that would steal away Canadian sovereignty.
Echoing the fears of many, Ms. May says the SPP was a vehicle for "political integration" on the continent, and says she suspected it would lead to things like the sale of Canadian fresh water. She adds that it ignored key security issues like climate change, while failing to safeguard prosperity by protecting local jobs.
The deep cloak of secrecy that surrounded the SPP, she adds, and the exclusion of all stakeholders but business elites, were also major causes for concern.
"There's never been an effort at bilateral or trilateral co-operation that so excluded civil society while at the same time including corporate CEOs," she says. "It's held in deep secrecy, and that's not healthy."
Rising from the Dead
Ten days before the North American Leaders Summit in Mexico of Aug. 9, a group of North American academics gathered in Mexico City. Assembled at the subtle suggestion of the White House, and with key administration officials within earshot, leading thinkers hashed out new ideas for the future of continental co-operation.
Embassy spoke with a number of the thinkers who attended this "Cross Talk" conference, organized by the Woodrow Wilson International Center, to get the inside track on the Obama administration's plans for the future of North American co-operation. And by most accounts, the Obama administration has big plans for SPP 2.0.
Rick Van Schoik, director of the North American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona State University, says the Obama administration clearly is thinking hard about the future of trilateral engagement.
"I've got the clear signal that Obama intends to more than just perpetuate, he wants to reinvigorate it," he says. "Instead of just a couple obvious issues—trade and commerce and security—I think he intends to bring the entire government to the issue of North America."
Maryscott Greenwood, executive director of the Canadian American Business Council, also says she thinks a much broader, more inclusive and transparent mechanism will arise.
"One thing that President Obama has made clear, and that the White House has made clear in my discussions with them, is that this is going to be much more inclusive. Business, labour, civil society, academia. And it will be much more transparent, whatever the thing is."
While the structure of SPP's next incarnation is becoming clearer, most experts agree that besides President Obama's decision to attend the Three Amigos summit, little substantial work was done in Guadalajara.
Colin Robertson, a former Canadian consul general in Los Angeles and currently a distinguished senior fellow at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, says the Obama administration is still exploring how it will transform the SPP, and decided to start off slow.
Mr. Robertson describes the Guadalajara summit it as "trilateral lite" while the three governments figured out what to do next. Many of the perennial players, he adds, were absent. The most conspicuous absence was the North American Competitiveness Council, the trilateral group of elite CEOs that traditionally met with the leaders at SPP summits.
Mr. Robertson says this was because the Obama administration must tread very carefully in its dealings with business, as it is "very carefully watching its labour flank." Maintaining labour support for health care and climate change initiatives is crucial for Obama, he says, and the president excluded the NACC from Guadalajara for these political appearances.
Andrew Selee, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center's Mexico Institute, says he thinks the SPP will be much more ad hoc in the future, and will evolve into something more like a "neighborhood G3," where leaders will consult on issues of the day.
"This is no longer about North American integration, this is much more about consulting regularly in the neighbourhood," he says. "I think you're going to see the North American summits continue to be much more consultative, much more like the G20 or the G8."
Embassy submitted a number of questions about the future of North American co-operation and the successor to the SPP to Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister's spokesman, but no response was given. Similarly, calls to Dan Restrepo, president Obama's senior adviser on Latin America, were not returned.
A New North America
While changes are certainly afoot, all the experts agree that with a virtual laundry list of international crises, the Obama administration will likely have little time to devote to reinvigorating North American co-operation.
Considering this, Mr. Robertson believes Canada should take a leadership role in reconceiving the alliance. Canada will be playing host to the trilateral summit next year, and that presents a timely opportunity for the Canadian government to be proactive, to think big, and to give the SPP the extreme makeover Mr. Obama is looking for—in such a way that suits Canada's interests.
"Now it is up to us to take the initiative," he says.
Mr. Robertson says, however, that there is no need to re-invent the wheel. He suggests keeping the North American Competitiveness Council, while breathing new life into the underperforming institutions that grew out of the NAFTA side agreements on labour and environment.
Paul Martin says that when the SPP was founded, he thought it would consistently evolve to include a broader slice of society, at least more than it did in the end.
Mr. Martin says he thought criticisms of the SPP's lack of openness were "valid comment," and agreed that it should become more transparent. He says its scope of engagement should be broadened to bring in organizations like labour unions and universities.
"If you're talking about building a stronger North America, I think you want to bring in as many players as you possibly can," he says.
jdavis@embassymag.ca
http://embassymag.ca/page/printpage/spp_death_knell-8-26-2009