Closing Borders and Opening Debate

David Jones begins his position paper (Open borders and closing threats) with a perfectly reasonable question: Where do we draw the line on the adage that 'Good fences make good neighbours?' He then asks, Do longer, higher, barbed-wire, electrified, security-patrolled, and access-controlled fences make for still better neighbours? His answer to this important question can be summed as follows: Who cares! We're doing it anyway.Instead of addressing important questions about where the most effective and efficient security lines can be drawn, Jones offers what amounts to a condescending lecture to Canadians about what we should be doing to help protect American security interests. are still struggling with the costs both financial and philosophical, Jones proclaims, Canadians who whine about our process and/or its conclusions are not helping to resolve the (emphasis added). Unfortunately, Jones never actually addresses the baseline problems, aside from a few sweeping generalizations about how 9/11 define a generation. Apparently, no clearer explanation, reasonably compelling defence, or well-articulated set of arguments is required to help readers understand the relevant political, social, and psychological effects of 9/11, or the various pressures officials face as a consequence of real (and imagined) risks and threats.Jones goes on to argue:Many Canadians present the attitude that the United States is paranoid over border security when we should only be neurotic. In a phrase, 'Humour us.' We may indeed be that batty old Uncle Sam who can be a wingnut caricature in cartoon cleverness, but no wants to be tagged with the responsibility for being the base for terrorists who strike the United States in some future attack.... Ottawa needs to be in the unassailable position that it is clear that Canada went the extra mile to placate the paranoid uncle, because even paranoids have real enemies. And angry paranoids will strike out at the perceived source of injury, regardless of whether they damage themselves as well....What we seek from Canadians is maximum effort to support our interests. Kvetching that we are using too many nails to shut the lDarn door' doesn't qualify as support.The assertion that officials should simply sit back, humour us and let the batty old, paranoid, wingnut of an uncle do the hard work does not amount to a plausible policy position worthy of engaging serious debate: it essentially abdicates the responsibility (obligation?) Jones has, as a former US State Department official who worked on the Canada file, to explain and defend contemporary US security policies. Jones may think he is on solid ground when directing his lecture to whiners, but it becomes a little worrisome when one considers that the exact same complaints are being raised by a growing number of prominent American citizens, scholars, and policy officials who remain equally skeptical about the facts surrounding the risks and costs of globalized terrorism. In light of the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in homeland security since 2001 (approximately $72 billion last year), Americans are just as motivated to ask perfectly reasonable questions about the true scale of terrorist threats. Insulting critics by telling them to relax and let the folks in Washington handle things (Humour us!) is dangerously reminiscent of the response the US government, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Wall Street investment bankers offered to their critics before the bailout - Trust us!There are at least three problems with Jones's approach, each of which undermines the credibility and tolerability ofhis key recommendations (many of which I endorse). The first problem stems not from Jones's simplistic caricature of Canadian whiners, but his decidedly superficial take on the spectrum of American views and opinions on globalized terrorism and US security priorities. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.