Is a North American Union Possible?

North America. Home to over 528 million people, it is the 4^th largest continent in terms of population. Of those, over 80% live in Canada, The United States, and Mexico. These three nations are also the most developed, having the top three highest GDPs on the continent. Obviously, they engage in a lot of economic trade and political cooperation. After the launch of the Euro in 1999, many started to wonder whether or not a similar arrangement would be successful in North America. This of course set off many debates among scholars, politicians, and average people on the street. All of them asking the same question, “Is this possible, and if so, is it a good idea?” Liberal theory suggests that it could work, but Realists and Constructivists would be more pessimistic about a North American Union’s chances of success. But, regardless of its chances, the NAU would most likely be beneficial to all three nations, if it is done correctly.

The United States, Canada, and Mexico already have many institutions and agreements in between them, the most prominent being NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect on January 1, 1994 (USDA). Its purpose was to “remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico” (USDA). When it was originally signed, most of the provisions outlined did not take effect right away. Some took years to gradually implement, but all of them were finally in effect by January 1, 2008 (TIME). The benefits of NAFTA have been numerous. Andrea Ford points out that “Intra-North American trade has more than tripled since NAFTA's inception, and the value of U.S. agricultural exports worldwide has climbed by 65 percent” (Ford). But, this success does not come without controversy. Many critics say that this agreement undermines the US manufacturing industry, because companies will close down their American branches in favor of cheaper Mexican labor (Ford). This fear, however, turns out to be false. U.S. manufacturing rose 58% between 1993 and 2006, compared to 42% between 1980 and 1993 (USDA). Even in the face of economic success, many are still wary about NAFTA, let alone a North American Union.

This brings us back to the question of whether or not a North American Union would work. Eric Hellener, a Canadian economist, notes some of the major obstacles standing in the way of a NAU. One of the primary concerns of Canadians, and one of the major points of critics, is that the United States would “inevitably dominate such a union because of the asymmetries of power in the region” (Hellener 91). Because of its drastically larger population and GDP, this claim does hold a lot weight. Another concern is that “Canada would be unable to convince the US to follow the European model of creating a new supranational currency and central bank in which the participant countries had an equal voice. Instead, the common currency for North America would become the US dollar, and Canada would have little influence over monetary policy in the region” (Hellener 91). Thus, if there ever was to be a NAU, it would have to come with political equality guarantees, and in order for this to truly be fair, we would have to give up our beloved dollar in favor of an entirely new currency. This is where the constructivists say that a North American Union would never work. They would cite American identity as a major inhibitor of any plan to deeply integrate North America. Another point that backs up constructivists’ arguments is the fact that not only would we have to give up our currency; we would have to integrate our languages also. Many Americans would undoubtedly have issues with this. Today, there is already controversy over schools making special accommodations for students who speak primarily Spanish, let alone proposing the requirement that all official documents be printed in English, Spanish, and French. Realists would point out that the US would also be unwilling to risk its security in favor of a political union with Canada and Mexico. Drug cartels are causing havoc in the northern Mexican states, causing the US to build up forces on the border. Thus reinforcing their point that Americans would feel that it would be too dangerous to integrate with Mexico. Those are only a few of the arguments against a North American Union, and it already seems impossible.

But, looking at this matter through the lens of Liberalism, it would seem that the benefit to all three countries would outweigh the costs. To prove this, we need not look further than the benefits that NAFTA has already provided. Canada and Mexico accounted for 37% of the total growth of U.S. agricultural exports since 1993 (USDA). Mexican wages grew steadily after the 1994 peso crisis, reached pre-crisis levels in 1997; and have increased each year since (USDA). From 1993 to 2007, trade among the NAFTA nations more than tripled, from $297 billion to $930 billion. Business investment in the United States has risen by 117 percent since 1993, compared to a 45 percent increase between 1979 and 1993 (USDA). These facts show just some of the economic benefits of integration, but are definitely not all that there is. If the NAFTA members were to further integrate, our economic and worldwide political power would increase exponentially. We are a resource rich continent. If we were able to integrate our economies, we would be the biggest economic powerhouse on the planet, creating millions of jobs and increasing the average wage for all North Americans. Realist arguments about security are largely baseless. The US already minimally guards its border with Canada, so we are already integrated with Canada in that sense. When it comes to the southern border, it would make the US more secure to be directly involved in Mexican law enforcement. A joint effort to clean up the crime ridden northern regions of Mexico, using American tactics and Mexican personnel, would make both countries more secure. Not to mention, an increased US presence would also pressure reforms within the Mexican government, promoting a crackdown on corruption within law enforcement. Constructivist arguments do not make much sense either. The “American Identity” is changing. Before this century is over, Whites will be a minority (CBSnews). As a nation, we are quickly moving away from a “WASP” mentality, and toward a more “integrated” mindset. Therefore, our “identity” will be in the perfect place by the time a North American Union is even feasible.

There are many arguments for and against a more integrated North America. We saw the beginnings with NAFTA and over the coming years will most likely see more integration on all levels. This integration would be beneficial to all involved. But, in the face of this current economic crisis, a true North American Union will most likely not happen for many years to come.

Works Cited

Ford, Andrea. "A Brief History Of NAFTA - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Time Magazine, 30 Dec. 2008. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. .

Helleiner, Eric. "Canada as a 13th Reserve District? Federalism and the Governance of North American Monetary Union." Canadian Foreign Policy Journal (2004): 91-109. Print.

"North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) —." USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Web. 06 Nov. 2011. .

"Whites in U.S. Edge Toward Minority Status - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. CBS News, 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. .