TRIUMVIRAT

Lunique simulation parlementaire de lAmrique du Nord Snat du Mexique, 22 au 26 mai 2006 Forum sur lintgration nord-amricaine

GUIDE DES COMMISSIONS

Mise jour : 9 mars 2006

Bienvenue au sein du Triumvirat!

Nous souhaitons que cette exprience soit des plus intressantes et formatrice pour vous. En vue de bien vous prparer, nous vous transmettons un Guide des commissions afin de vous prsenter plus en dtails les rles que chacun de vous assumera, ainsi que les thmes dont il sera question durant les travaux parlementaires. Dans le cadre du Triumvirat, vous serez appels reprsenter soit un lgislateur dun tat fdral ou fdr de lAmrique du Nord, un journaliste, ou encore un reprsentant dun groupe dintrt. Dici la tenue de la simulation, vous devez vous familiariser avec les obligations lies au rle qui vous a t assign, de mme quavec les quatre thmes qui seront dbattus lors du Triumvirat. Chacune des commission se droulera dans une seule des trois langues officielles du Triumvirat. Ainsi, les travaux relatifs la commission traitant de la procdure de rglement des diffrends se droulera en anglais, celle portant sur la cration dun Fonds dinvestissement nord-amricain seffectuera en espagnol, la commission abordant la question du contrle des flux migratoires fonctionnera en espagnol alors que le thme de la mobilit dans le domaine de lducation universitaire sera abord en anglais.

Lquipe du secrtariat du Triumvirat

Christine Frchette, Directrice Gnrale Cline Roche-Crespo, coordinatrice et charge de projet, Triumvirat Melissa Jean-Brousseau, charge de projet, Triumvirat Louis-Philippe Jannard, charg de projet, Triumvirat

TABLE DES MATIRES

1. Les rles au sein du Triumvirat a) Lgislateur b) Journaliste c) Lobbyiste 2. Les thmes des commissions politiques a) La procdure de rglement des diffrends de lALNA b) La cration dun Fonds dinvestissement nord-amricain c) Le contrle des flux migratoires d) La mobilit dans le domaine de lducation universitaire 3. Les prix 3 3 4 6 8 8 17 27 41 62 66

Annexe Modle de projet de loi

1. LES FONCTIONS AU SEIN DU TRIUMVIRAT

A) LGISLATEUR
titre de membre dune commission et de reprsentant dun tat fdral ou fdr, vous devrez, lors de la simulation, dbattre et lgifrer relativement au thme sur lequel votre commission est appelle se prononcer. Par lentremise de vos discussions et ngociations avec vos collgues, vous devrez contribuer llaboration dune rsolution spcifique votre commission, qui sera ensuite soumis au vote de lAssemble interparlementaire. Dans le but de vous sensibiliser aux enjeux propres ltat que vous reprsentez et de vous prparer lcriture dune rsolution en commission, une premire tche vous est demande. Vous devez soumettre, individuellement, un avant-projet de rsolution portant sur le thme abord par la commission laquelle vous avez t assigne. Cet avant-projet servira notamment identifier une voie lgislative qui pourrait soffrir votre commission et vous permettra de prciser les intrts de ltat que vous reprsentez. Votre avant-projet de rsolution, de mme que ceux de vos collgues, permettront au Secrtariat du Triumvirat dlaborer un projet de rsolution pour chacune des commissions. Ce dernier servira de document de base aux discussions et aux ngociations lors de la simulation. Votre avant-projet peut sinspirer des pistes daction proposes dans le prsent document. Ces pistes daction constituent des repres pour votre avant-projet de rsolution. Vous pouvez choisir lune des propositions mentionnes, la prciser et en former un avant-projet unique. Vous pouvez galement choisir de suggrer un avantprojet de rsolution ne faisant pas rfrence aux propositions ci-jointes, mais refltant un enjeu pertinent au thme abord et aux intrts de ltat que vous reprsentez. Votre avant-projet de rsolution doit sinscrire de faon cohrente dans la problmatique gnrale laquelle est confronte votre commission. Vous devez aussi vous inspirer des intrts, coutumes et volonts de ltat que vous reprsentez, sans avoir ncessairement reprendre au pied de la lettre les positions dfendues par les lgislateur de votre tat. Lavant-projet de rsolution que vous suggrerez au Secrtariat gnral doit en fait reflter les objectifs et intrts de votre tat. Il est noter que votre rle en est un de lgislateur, cest--dire dun reprsentant du pouvoir lgislatif et non pas dun reprsentant dun gouvernement dtenant un pouvoir excutif. Vous avez donc t dsign comme reprsentant manant dun Parlement qui regroupe divers partis politiques et non pas dun gouvernement. Nous avons opt pour ce type de reprsentation afin de vous laisser un plus grande marge de manuvre quant aux positions que vous pouvez dfendre.

Afin de vous guider dans lidentification des objectifs et caractristiques de votre tat, nous vous encourageons fortement, dune part, consulter les notices bibliographiques relatives votre commission et, dautre part, entrer en contact avec des professeurs, des reprsentants officiels ou des organismes prsents dans ltat que vous reprsentez, afin de connatre leurs intrts en la matire. Il est par ailleurs prciser que, pour des raisons de simplification, vous navez pas tenir compte des pouvoirs que vous octroie la Constitution du pays que vous reprsentez. Il est donc considr que chaque lgislateur a le droit de se prononcer sur l'ensemble des thmes soumis dbat. faire Vous devez transmettre au Secrtariat du Triumvirat un avant-projet de rsolution au plus tard le 7 avril 2006 ladresse croche@fina-nafi.org traitant du thme de la commission politique laquelle vous avez t assign. Afin de vous aider dans la rdaction de votre avant-projet de rsolution, un modle est prsent en annexe. Vous devez respecter la forme (et non le contenu) que prsente ce modle dans la rdaction de votre propre avant-projet. Vous devez respecter obligatoirement les critres de prsentation suivants : -800 1 000 mots, avec en-tte vous identifiant (voir le modle en annexe); -Police : Georgia, taille 11; -Simple interligne, texte justifi. Le plagiat est interdit et sera sanctionn. Toute inspiration implicite ou rfrence explicite doit tre indique dans le corps mme de lavant-projet de rsolution. Tout retard sera pnalis. Bon travail!

B) JOURNALISTE
titre de journaliste, vous devrez, lors de la simulation, participer la production du journal TrilatHerald qui sera publi tous les jours, du lundi 22 mai au vendredi 26 mai. Des exemplaires du journal seront transmis quotidiennement tous les participants du Triumvirat. Ils seront galement mis en ligne sur le site Internet du FINA et seront transmis par courrier lectronique lensemble des institutions partenaires du Triumvirat. Le TrilatHerald sera compos des divers articles et entrevues que vous aurez rdigs avant et pendant la semaine de la simulation. Le journal devra fournir de linformation sur la teneur des dbats ayant cours entre les lgislateurs. Tout au long de la simulation, divers postes vous seront assigns au sein de lquipe de rdaction du journal, parmi

lesquels photographe, ditorialiste et journaliste. Une personne assumera pour la dure de la simulation le poste de rdacteur en chef. Vos articles pourront tre rdigs dans la langue de votre choix, soit en anglais, en franais ou en espagnol. Le journal sera trilingue dans le sens o il regroupera des articles dans ces trois langues. Vous pouvez cosultez les articles de landernier sur le site Internet du FINA la section Triumvirat 2005/Mdias. Il est noter que les lgislateurs et les lobbyistes du Triumvirat seront invits cette anne faire usage du TrilatHerald pour influencer lorientation des dbats qui se tiendront tout au long de la simulation. Dans le but de vous familiariser avec votre travail et avec les thmes qui seront abords lors de la simulation, une premire tche vous est demande. Vous devez rdiger un article de journal prsentant les enjeux lis lun des thmes abords dans le cadre du Triumvirat. Votre article doit notamment inclure une entrevue avec un acteur important de ce processus. Cet acteur peut tre soit un reprsentant dun groupe dintrt (entreprise, syndicat, ONG), un leader dopinion (tel quun journaliste qui crit sur le sujet, un membre dun think tank, un universitaire ou un chercheur), ou un reprsentant politique (dput, reprsentant, snateur, gouverneur, membre du gouvernement, etc.). Vous pourriez galement dcider dinterviewer un des participants au Triumvirat qui assume un rle de lgislateur ou de lobbyiste en regard de ce thme. Lcriture de ce premier article doit respecter les critres journalistiques dusage: -information exacte et vrifie; -vracit des faits et des propos avancs; -rigueur intellectuelle et mthodologique dans la rdaction. Vous devez aussi obligatoirement respecter les critres de prsentation suivants : - 800 1 000 mots, avec en-tte vous identifiant; -Un titre accrocheur; -Police : Georgia, taille 11; -Simple interligne, texte justifi; -Utiliser la langue de votre choix (franais, espagnol ou anglais). Le plagiat est interdit et sera sanctionn. Toute inspiration implicite ou rfrence explicite une autre source doit tre indique dans le corps mme de larticle. Vous devez remettre au Secrtariat gnral votre article au plus tard le 7 avril 2006 ladresse croche@fina-nafi.org . Tout retard sera pnalis. Bon travail!

C) LOBBYISTE
titre de reprsentant dun groupe dintrt, vous devrez, lors de la simulation, vous assurer que les projets de rsolution proposs en assemble parlementaire respectent le mandat qui vous aura t confi par le Secrtariat du Triumvirat. Ce mandat vous sera transmis de manire confidentielle, afin de ne pas en dvoil la nature lensemble des des participants. Vous serez appels faire pression sur les lgislateurs afin de remplir le mandat qui vous aura t confi et afin de dfendre les intrts de votre organisation dans llaboration des projets de rsolution. Durant la simulation, vous devrez faire paratre une lettre ouverte dans le TrilatHerald, relativement au thme dont vous devez traiter. Vous devrez galement soulever lintrt dun des journalistes du TrilatHerald, afin dobtenir une couverture dans le TrilatHerald. Vous devrez galement faire au moins une prsentation devant les membres de la commission qui traite du thme li au mandat de votre organisation, afin dy faire part des suggestions que les lgislateurs devraient apporter leur projet de rsolution. Le 26 mai en matine, vous devrez dposer un bref rapport, dau plus une page, au Secrtariat du Triumvirat. Ce rapport devra faire tat des gains et des appuis que vous avez recueilli parmi les lgislateurs et des moyens que vous avez utilis pour y parvenir, suivant le mandat qui vous avait t confi. Dans le but de vous familiariser avec les intrts propres votre organisation, une premire tche vous est demande. Vous devez rdiger un argumentaire, comprenant lidentification dau moins 5 objectifs de votre organisation relatifs la commission cible et dau moins 5 arguments que vous prvoyez utiliser lors de la simulation, afin dassurer la prise en considration de vos objectifs. Vous devez galement identifier trois arguments avancs par les opposants votre organisation et indiquer les rponses que vous donnez ces contre-arguments. Afin de vous familiariser avec les intrts de votre organisation, nous vous invitons galement contacter des reprsentants officiels dorganisations qui sapparentent celle que vous reprsenterez. Dans la rdaction de votre argumentaire, vous devez respecter les critres de prsentation suivants : -800 1 000 mots, avec en-tte vous identifiant; -Police : Georgia, taille 11; -Simple interligne, texte justifi; -Utilisez la langue de votre choix (franais, espagnol ou anglais). Le plagiat est interdit et sera sanctionn. Toute inspiration implicite ou rfrence explicite doit tre indique dans le corps mme de largumentaire.

Vous devez remettre au Secrtariat du Triumvirat votre argumentaire au plus tard le 7 avril 2006 ladresse croche@fina-nafi.org . Tout retard sera pnalis. Bon travail!

2. LES THMES DES COMMISSIONS POLITIQUES A) NAFTA DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISMS OF CHAPTER 19
1. Context One of the main objectives of the North American Free Trade Agreement is to guarantee its signatories access to North American markets. In order to render this access fair and predictable, the setting up of dispute settlement mechanisms is essential. Among the various mechanisms instituted by NAFTA, the one dealing with antidumping and countervailing duties 1 (chapter 19) is, without doubt, the most used. Close to 80% of North American trade disputes concern this mechanism, 2 of which 89% of the complaints are related to antidumping rights and 11% deal with countervailing rights. Close to 78% of these complaints are directed against the US 3 , which is explained by the size of the American economy and the dependence of its North American partners on the US market. 4 Whatever the case, the frequent use of this chapter 19 5 mechanism does not seem to have had any significant influence on the volume of North American trade. 6 To settle trade disputes concerning this type of rights, chapter 19 advocates the setting up of binational panels and extraordinary challenge committees, as outlined in the following articles:

1 An antidumping duty is a special levy imposed on imported merchandise to protect an affected domestic industry from injury caused by sale of dumped goods in the importing country. []A countervailing duty is a special duty imposed on imported merchandise to protect a domestic industry from injury caused by subsidized imports from other countries. NAFTA Secretariat. Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Online: www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?ArticleID=282 (page consulted on February 24, 2006). 2 Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2005. Dispute settlement in the NAFTA: fixing an agreement under siege . Online : www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/38/1/parlbus/commbus/house/FAAE/report/RP1856888//faaerp09/03cov2-e.htm (page consulted on February 10, 2006). 3 Mena, Antonio Ortiz. 2002. Dispute Settlement Under NAFTA dans Edward J. Chambers et Peter H. Smith, dir., NAFTA in the new millennium. Edmonton: the University of Alberta Press. 4 Cnovas, Gustavo Vega, Alejandro Posadas et al. 2005. Mxico, Estados Unidos y Cnada : resolucin de controversias en la era post tratado de libre comercio de America del Norte. Mexico, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico. 5 Since the entry into force of NAFTA, chapter 19 has been cited in 112 cases, 31 of which are still awaiting a final decision. By comparison, chapter 20 has been cited 3 tiems. See: NAFTA Secrtariat. Status Report - NAFTA & FTA Dispute Settlement Proceedings Online:www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?ArticleID=9 (page consulted on Feb. 24, 2006). 6 Mena, Antonio Ortiz. 2002. Dispute Settlement Under NAFTA .

1. Article 1903 provides for the review of legislative modifications. As a result, a Party to which an amendment of another Party's antidumping or countervailing duty statute applies may request in writing that such amendment be referred to a binational panel 7 , in order to determine if this modification complies with the provisions of NAFTA and the WTO. 2. Article 1904 enables parties to request that a panel review [] a final antidumping or countervailing duty determination of a competent investigating authority of an importing Party to determine whether such determination was in accordance with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the importing Party in order to determine if the said determination is in accordance with the [] law of the importing Party regarding the rights in question 8 . 3. Paragraph 13 of article 1904 provides for the setting up of an Extraordinary Challenge Committee when a party deems the decision rendered by the special bilateral group to be erroneous. The said decision can then be appealed, but only for well-defined reasons (abuse of process, conflict of interest or abuse of power). 4. Article 1905 represents an additional protection that sets up a committee responsible for examining if the laws of the parties interfered with the work of the special binational panels. The special binational panels created under these articles are not permanent in nature. They are ad hoc committees whose procedures have to be accomplished within 315 days. It should be noted that the said groups neither create nor apply trilateral legal rules. They simply review the application of national laws of the importing country to ensure that they are correctly applied. 9 In addition, although they are binding on the parties to the dispute, the decisions of these special groups do not create a precedent and as a result do not establish any jurisprudence. When the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was signed in 1987 between Canada and the United States, these provisions were, for Canada, a crucial component of the agreement since they guaranteed Canadian stakeholders a more certain access to the American market. In fact, some people feel that it is doubtful that Canada [would have] signed the FTA without the United States agreeing to a binational dispute settlement mechanism. 10 It was thus a key provision that, during negotiations of NAFTA, was

NAFTA, article 1903. ALENA article 1904. Au Canada, lorganisme comptent est lAgence des services frontaliers du Canada, aux tats-Unis, il sagit de lInternational Trade Administration qui relve du Department of Commerce, et au Mexique, cest la Unidad de Prcticas Comerciales Internacionales du Secretara de Economa. 9 Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2002. Partenaires en Amrique du Nord : Cultiver les relations du Canada avec les United States et le Mexique. p. 155. 10 Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2005. Dispute settlement in the NAFTA: fixing an agreement under siege . Also see : Fried, Jonathan T. 2000. FTA and NAFTA
8

adapted in order to make it apply to Mexico. It is widely believed to be a concession that was done to Canada and subsequently to Mexico by the United States, the result of a compromise among the NAFTA partners.

2. Main Issues Although some analysts agree that, in general, the dispute settlement mechanism under chapter 19 of NAFTA works well 11 , others are not so categorical, some even disagreeing strongly, and attribute many shortcomings to this mechanism 12 . a. Absence of jurisprudence First, one of the most cited shortcomings concerns the fact that the decisions of the special binational panels establish no jurisprudence either nationally or at the level of NAFTA. This leads to a situation where similar cases can be judged differently. Moreover, the American refusal to carry over a principle of collateral estoppel meaning that once a court decides an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue means that the same case can be tried over and over again. 13 In addition to reducing the predictability of the process, this state of affairs is detrimental to its effectiveness. In his report on these provisions, the
Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the House of Commons considers that the lack of Chapter 19 panels ability to set precedents is a key weakness in the dispute-settlement process. 14

b. The ad hoc nature of binational panels

The ad hoc nature of binational panels, that are proving more and more difficult to set up, is another problem with the mechanism. Recruitment is made difficult by certain factors, including the low remuneration of its members, the absence of a permanent list, the low number of qualified experts 15 and the complexity of rules concerning possible conflicts of interest. This situation leads to delays (the average is 696 days while the maximum stipulated is

Dispute Settlement in Canadian Trade Policy in Ian MacDonald, dir., Free Trade, Risks and Rewards. Montreal : McGill-Queens University Press. 11 Regarding this topic, please refer to Mena, Antonio Ortiz. 2002. Dispute Settlement under NAFTA ; Kirton, John. 2004. NAFTA Dispute settlement mechanisms: An overview. 12 Regarding this topic, please refer to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2005. Rglement des diffrends dans NAFTA : rendre viable un accord en tat de sige; Cnovas, Gustavo Vega, Alejandro Posadas et al. 2005. Mxico, Estados Unidos y Cnada : resolucin de controversias en la era post tratado de libre comercio de America del Norte. 13 Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2005. Dispute settlement in the NAFTA: fixing an agreement under siege . 14 Id. 15 Entre autres, la question de la langue pose problme dans la constitution des groupes binationaux. You can also refer to : Stinson, Yvonne. 2000. Mexico and Dispute Settlement. in Ian MacDonald, dir., Free Trade, Risks and Rewards. Montreal : McGill-Queens University Press.

10

315 days 16 ) with serious consequences, especially on North American companies. Furthermore, it is part of a larger set of problems, that is, the lack of an institutional infrastructure for NAFTA, according to Lawrence L. Herman 17 . Lawrence L. Herman regrets the fact that there is no permanent central institution. Although section 2001 provides for the setting up of a free trade commission, in practice this commission is only a periodic meeting 18 of the Trade ministers of each of the parties of NAFTA. The Commission can thus not assume the tasks that it is required to perform, that is (1) supervising the application of the treaty, (2) overseeing its future elaboration, (3) resolving disputes that may arise regarding its interpretation or application, (4) supervising the work of all committees and working groups and (5) considering any other matter that may affect the operation of the Agreement. In reality, this is all fiction 19 since the Commission only meets about once a year during which, according to the author, only few major decisions are taken. As for the Secretariat, the fact that it is divided into three national sections results in the repetition of several tasks. In addition, the lack of resources facing the Secretariat as well as the absence of an independent legal status are widely deplored. In terms of institutional efficiency, this is also mainly fiction. 20 This lack of resources thus limits the ability of the Secretariats to provide effective support to the Commission.

As for the provisions of chapter 19, Herman believes that despite the fact that special binational panels have taken previous decisions into consideration in their judgements, the ad hoc nature of these groups leads to variations and inconsistencies in jurisprudence. 21 c. Unconstitutionality of chapter 19 This is a point raised by some detractors concerning chapter 19, including the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports. According to this organization, the provisions of chapter 19 are unconstitutional under American and Mexican law. In the United States, they violate the right of citizens to use courts set up under the article 3 and infringe on the article 2 that requires judges of American courts to be appointed by the president and ratified by Senate. To overcome the last problem, it was agreed that the list of members who can participate in the dispute settlement process will henceforth be drawn up by the president and ratified by Senate. This situation is condemned by some people who see this as a politization of the process 22 .

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2005. Dispute settlement in the NAFTA: fixing an agreement under siege . 17 Herman, Lawrence L. 2005. Making NAFTA Better: Comments on the Evolution of Chapter 19. 18 Ibid., 6. 19 Ibid., 7. 20 Id. 21 Ibid., 9. Regarding this issue, you can also refer to : Potter, Simon V. 2000. Dispute Settlement : A practitioners perspective. in Ian MacDonald, dir., Free Trade, Risks and Rewards. Montreal : McGillQueens University Press. 22 Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2005. Dispute settlement in the NAFTA: fixing an agreement under siege.

16

11

In Mexico, chapter 19 interferes with the use of the constitutional right of protection that enables those accused to challenge administrative actions in federal courts. d. Abusive Use of the Extraordinary Challenge Committee According to the SCFAIT, the use of the Extraordinary Challenge Committee, that was supposed to be used only to settle serious abuse of process, serves as the de facto de court of appeal, which exceeds its mandate, and extends the process considerably. These various situations contribute in undermining the credibility of this process, leading to problems with its effectiveness and predictability. The delays, partly caused by difficulties in setting up special binational panels, multiple postponements for similar goods and the abusive use of the Extraordinary Challenge Committee go against the spirit of chapter 19 that is intended to ensure prompt and efficient dispute settlement.

3. Actors Involved a. Governments and Parliamentarians As mentioned above, the Canadian position regarding chapter 19 is quite clear. During the negotiation of the FTA, these provisions were a key part of the participation of the Canadian government in the agreement and this is still true. Although so far binational panels have met Canadian expectations better than American courts, the setting up of stronger institutions will make it possible to overcome the weaknesses of chapter 19 and ensure the protection, prosperity and ultimately, the sovereignty of Canadian trade. 23 Actually, Canada is increasingly seeking to consolidate its access to markets in order to create a stable environment for trade and investment 24 . Thus, since the prosperity of Canada and Mexico is highly dependent on their level of trade with the United States, it is important for these two partners to ensure their longterm access to the American market. Such a reinforcement of institutions will thus equally be profitable to Mexico. In a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade in the autumn of 2005, Mexican President, Vicente Fox spoke in favour of improving dispute settlement mechanisms and respecting the decisions rendered by binational panels. He especially insisted on the fact that the institutions and procedures should be reinforced rather than diminished. 25

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2005. Dispute settlement in the NAFTA: fixing an agreement under siege. 24 Fried, Jonathan T. 2000. FTA and NAFTA Dispute Settlement in Canadian Trade Policy . 173. 25 Joyce, Greg. Fox dnonce les tats-Unis qui refusent de respecter les jugements rendus contre eux , Le Devoir (Montreal), October 1st, 2005, A4.

23

12

As for the United States, there is a lot of reticence regarding the proposed changes. Some people believe that the United States regrets having granted Canada and Mexico the measures contained in chapter 19, adding that the United States has put a lot of effort and ingenuity 26 to weaken their effects. Furthermore, greater institutionalization of NAFTA could be poorly received by the US government. As for the possible unconstitutionality of chapter 19, Washington fully supports the validity of the mechanism 27 . b. Lobby Groups Some Canadian lobby groups maintain that the Canadian government does not use the mechanisms provided by chapter 19 enough and that it is not demanding enough in its requests. These groups, however, sometimes appreciate the said measures because they are beneficial to them. On the American side, some groups, including the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, are campaigning strongly in favour of the abolition of chapter 19 by claiming that the system of binational panels is unconstitutional under American law. c. Private Businesses. Canadian and Mexican entrepreneurs want to benefit from certain access to the American market, especially through fair tariffs. They especially want to reduce the possibility of protectionist action from the United States. Private American companies, for their part, have noticed the success of the other NAFTA partners and believe that American business interests would be better served by United States courts than by binational panels.

4. Course of Action Participants are invited to debate measures aimed at increasing the predictability and effectiveness of the dispute settlement mechanism provided for in chapter 19. They can draw inspiration from the solutions suggested here or present other possible solutions they deem more appropriate. 1. Most of the disputes dealt with under the chapter 19 provisions are concerned with antidumping rights. However, some sectors are less likely to give rise to antidumping measures. A possible solution aimed at reducing the number of these conflicts and disputes could be to jointly create a list of sectors for which such types of measures would be barred. The excluded sectors could then be governed by each countrys competition policies, the basic commitments set out
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 2005. Dispute settlement in the NAFTA: fixing an agreement under siege. 27 La presse canadienne. Bois duvre : lindustrie amricaine entend contester lALENA. Le Devoir (Montral), September 14, 2005, B4.
26

13

in NAFTA Chapter 15, and, especially, the activities of the Working Group on Trade and Competition set out under Article 1504. 28 In the long run, this solution would represent a first step toward the elimination of antidumping rights and their replacement with the said competition policies. 2. To counter problems related to the creation of binational panels, NAFTA partners could agree to create a permanent list of potential members for each country. Increasing their remuneration and simplifying the selection rules for candidates could also be implemented in view of improving the process. 3. NAFTA partners could agree that the decisions rendered by binational panels should create precedents and thus serve as jurisprudence for disputes concerning similar products. This solution would contribute in reducing the number of postponements for similar cases. We could also include the setting up of similar standards concerning the extraordinary settlement process and how it should be used, in accordance with the provisions of the text. 4. The creation of a permanent trilateral institution responsible for overseeing the role played by the binational panels could solve both the problem of setting up panels and the issue of jurisprudence. The setting up of this court could inscribe itself within the Secretariats joint mandate, allowing them to better coordinate their tasks and provide better support to the Free Trade Commission in performing its activities. Such a solution would lead to an improvement of the NAFTA process and institutions.

Mena, Antonio Ortiz. 2002. Dispute Settlement Under NAFTA. dans Edward J. Chambers et Peter H. Smith, dir., NAFTA in the new millennium. Edmonton: the University of Alberta Press.

28

14

Bibliography

British Columbia Lumber Trade Council. 2006. U.S. Lumber Industry Tactics Reach New Low. En ligne : http://www.bclumbertrade.com/ (page consulte le 23 fvrier 2006). Cnovas, Gustavo Vega, Alejandro Posadas et al. 2005. Mxico, Estados Unidos y Cnada : resolucin de controversias en la era post tratado de libre comercio de America del Norte. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico. CL-Bois. 2006. Notre approche, nos objectifs En index.cfm?Section=11&Detail=10 (page consulte le 3 fvrier 2006). ligne : www.ftlc.org/

Coalition for fair lumber imports. 2006. Welcome to the press room. En ligne : www.fairlumbercoalition.org/pressrm_issuesum.htm (page consulte le 17 fvrier 2006). Comit permanent des affaires trangres et du commerce international. 2002. Partenaires en Amrique du Nord : Cultiver les relations du Canada avec les tats-Unis et le Mexique. Ottawa. Comit permanent des affaires trangres et du commerce international. 2005. Rglement des diffrends dans lALENA : rendre viable un accord en tat de sige. En ligne : www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/38/1/parlbus/commbus/house/FAAE/report/ RP1856888//faaerp09/03-cov2-f.htm (page consulte le 10 fvrier 2006). Commerce international Canada. 2003. LAccord de libre-change nord-amricain. www.dfaitmaeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/menu-fr.asp (page consulte le 17 fvrier 2006). Fried, Jonathan T. 2000. FTA and NAFTA Dispute Settlement in Canadian Trade Policy dans Ian MacDonald, dir., Free Trade, Risks and Rewards. Montral : McGill-Queens University Press. Herman, Lawrence L. 2005. Making NAFTA Better: Comments on the Evolution of Chapter 19. Ottawa : Centre de droit et de politique commerciale. Joyce, Greg. Fox dnonce les tats-Unis qui refusent de respecter les jugements rendus contre eux, Le Devoir (Montral), 1 octobre 2005, A4. Kirton, John. 2004. NAFTA Dispute settlement mechanisms: An overview. Paper prepared for an Experts Workshop on NAFTA and its Implications for ASEANs Free Trade Area, Asian Institute, Munk Centre for International Studies, Toronto, May 27, 2004. Macrory, Patrick. 2002. NAFTA Chapter 19 A Successful Experiment in International Trade Dispute Resolution. CD Howe Institute Commentary. No. 168. Mena, Antonio Ortiz. 2002. Dispute Settlement Under NAFTA. dans Edward J. Chambers et Peter H. Smith, dir., NAFTA in the new millennium. Edmonton: the University of Alberta Press. Potter, Simon V. 2000. Dispute Settlement : A practitioners perspective. dans Ian MacDonald, dir., Free Trade, Risks and Rewards. Montral : McGill-Queens University Press.

15

Secrtariat de lALENA. 2006. Aperu des dispositions relatives au rglement des diffrends de l'Accord de libre-change nord-amricain (ALNA). En ligne : www.nafta-sec-alena.org/ (page consulte le 17 fvrier 2006). Secrtariat de lALENA. 2006. Foire aux questions. En ligne : www.nafta-secalena.org/DefaultSite/index_f.aspx?DetailID=582#6 (page consulte le 24 fvrier 2006). Secrtariat de lALENA. 2006. Historique des rvisions entreprises par les groupes spciaux en vertu de lALENA et de lALE. En ligne : www.nafta-sec-alena.org/ DefaultSite/index_f.aspx?DetailID=435 (page consulte le 24 fvrier 2006). Stinson, Yvonne. 2000. Mexico and Dispute Settlement. dans Ian MacDonald, dir., Free Trade, Risks and Rewards. Montral : McGill-Queens University Press.

16

B) LA CREACIN DE UN FONDO DE INVERSIN PARA AMRICA DEL NORTE

1. Contextualizacin A pesar de los xitos comerciales que han resultado del TLCAN, la brecha de desarrollo entre Mxico y sus vecinos no se ha reducido con el transcurso de los aos. Cuando el TLCAN entr en vigor en 1994, era la primera vez que pases desarrollados creaban una zona de libre comercio con un pas en desarrollo. A pesar de esa importante particularidad, en el acuerdo no se ha previsto mecanismo alguno para afrontar ese desafo y solucionar los problemas provocados por esa asimetra. Al apostar a la reduccin de las barreras tarifarias y la apertura a las inversiones directas extranjeras, los socios del TLCAN lograron, por cierto, aumentar de manera significativa los intercambios comerciales y las inversiones entre los tres pases. Desde la entrada en vigor del acuerdo, stas prcticamente se han triplicado. 29 Algunos esperaban que ese auge del comercio norteamericano sera, para Mxico, la oportunidad soada de elevar su nivel de desarrollo. Pero se comprueba que, hasta el presente, las fuerzas del mercado no han logrado responder por s solas a ese importante desafo. Esa brecha de desarrollo persistente entre Mxico y sus vecinos del norte tiene numerosos costos y consecuencias tanto econmicas, como polticas y sociales: limita el potencial de crecimiento de las economas norteamericanas, restringiendo las exportaciones de Canad y Estados Unidos hacia Mxico; genera un importante problema de inmigracin ilegal de personas procedentes de Mxico en bsqueda de mejores condiciones de vida en Estados Unidos, problema que conlleva gastos importantes, sobre todo en Estados Unidos, en el mbito del control de los flujos migratorios; obstaculiza el desarrollo de una comunidad norteamericana pues crea fuertes tensiones polticas y sociales; limita la contribucin mexicana a la consolidacin del espacio norteamericano e impide el desarrollo de una cohesin econmica; conduce a una degradacin ambiental acelerada a lo largo de la frontera estadounidense-mexicana donde se ha producido una explosin demogrfica debido a la presencia de migrantes en bsqueda de un empleo en el norte de Mxico o en Estados Unidos; contribuye a crear una percepcin negativa entre la poblacin mexicana en cuanto a los efectos del TLCAN y fragiliza el apoyo de las poblaciones latinoamericanas en cuanto al inters de crear un rea de Libre Comercio de las Amricas (ALCA).

29

Morley, Samuel; Pastor, Robert A.; Robinson, Sherman, Closing the development gap: A proposal for a North American investment fund, 3 de agosto del 2003, p.3. En lnea : www.fina-nafi.org/esp/enjeux/fonds.asp?langue=esp&menu=enjeux

17

Con miras a encarar ese problema, Vicente Fox invit a Estados Unidos y Canad, en 2000, a crear un Fondo de Inversiones Norteamericano cuyo objetivo sera reducir las disparidades econmicas entre Mxico y sus socios del TLCAN. 30 Esa propuesta se fundaba en la idea de que la lucha contra las disparidades econmicas norteamericanas no incumba solamente a Mxico y de que las repercusiones de esa lucha beneficiaran a todo el espacio econmico regional. Los objetivos de tal Fondo consistiran en nivelar el desarrollo entre los tres pases del TLCAN, tal como se estipula en el Acuerdo de Guanajuato del 2001 y que fue firmado por los Presidentes George W. Bush y Vicente Fox: El Acuerdo de Guanajuato aborda la cuestin de los esfuerzos que se deben realizar para consolidar una comunidad econmica en Amrica del Norte, cuyos beneficios enriquezcan las reas menos desarrolladas de la regin, y se extienda hacia los grupos ms vulnerables de nuestros pases. 31 Un antecedente europeo convincente Desde los inicios de la construccin de la comunidad europea en 1957, la voluntad de instaurar una convergencia econmica fue claramente expresada por sus miembros fundadores: "la reduccin de las desigualdades regionales es una de las condiciones esenciales de todo progreso econmico y poltico de la Unin Europea. () Ninguna comunidad podra mantenerse, ni tener sentido, si las poblaciones que la componen tuvieran condiciones de vida muy diferentes y si algunos miembros tuvieran la impresin de que la vida en comn beneficia slo a los otros miembros". 32 (traduccin propia) El Tratado de la Unin Europea, ratificado en 1993, refuerza esa orientacin, incluyendo la cohesin econmica y social entre los objetivos esenciales de la Unin. Se estipula que "la Comunidad se propone reducir la brecha entre los niveles de desarrollo de las diversas regiones y el retraso de las regiones menos favorecidas". As, la UE intenta aumentar la cohesin econmica entre sus miembros, que se define por una triple convergencia, es decir una convergencia de los ingresos, el ndice de desempleo y la competitividad. 33

Esa invitacin era la primera etapa de un plan de largo plazo escalonado en un perodo de ms de 20 aos y que culminaba con la creacin de un "mercado comn norteamericano", que inclua la adopcin de una tarifa externa comn, la movilidad de los trabajadores y la creacin de un fondo para reducir las disparidades econmicas. 31 Foro sobre la Integracin Norte Americana (FINA), Hacia una seguridad energtica norteamericana Reporte Final, 1 y 2 de Abril, 2004, Monterrey, p.19. En lnea: www.fina-nafi.org/esp/conf04/conf04.asp?langue=esp&menu=conf04 32 Moussis, Nicolas, Guide des politiques de lEurope, ditions MOLS, 4me dition, 1999, p.134 33 Morley, Samuel; Pastor, Robert A.; Robinson, Ibid., p.6.

30

18

A fin de intervenir ms eficazmente en los pases menos favorecidos de la Unin, el tratado de Maastricht cre el "Fondo de Cohesin". El Fondo de Cohesin es un instrumento estructural que, desde 1994, ayuda a los Estados miembros a reducir las disparidades econmicas y sociales as como a estabilizar sus economas. El Fondo de Cohesin financia hasta el 85% de los gastos subvencionables de proyectos de gran envergadura en el mbito del medio ambiente y la infraestructura de transporte. Esta medida fortalece la cohesin y la solidaridad en el seno de la UE. Los pases subvencionables son los Estados miembros menos prsperos de la Unin, cuyo producto interior bruto (PIB) per cpita es inferior al 90% de la media comunitaria, lo que, al principio, corresponda a Grecia, Portugal, Irlanda y Espaa. 34 De 1992 a 2006, la UE habr transferido el equivalente de unos 425,2 mil millones de euros (unos 615 mil millones de dlares estadounidenses). 35 En su sexto informe (febrero de 1999), la Comisin Europea declara: "Ahora est comprobado: el PIB por habitante de las regiones ms pobres alcanza el del promedio de los pases de la UE. De 1986 a 1999, el PIB por habitante de los cuatro pases que se han beneficiado de los fondos de cohesin aument del 65 al 78% con respecto al promedio de la UE." 36 Los datos ms recientes del tercer informe sobre la cohesin econmica y social de la Comisin Europea sealan que, para los tres pases iniciales que siguen recibiendo fondos de cohesin 37 , el PIB por habitante alcanz en 2001 el 79%, luego el 81% en 2002. 38 Cabe destacar que los pases ms ricos de Europa contribuyen al Fondo de Cohesin procurando satisfacer sus propios intereses. Las estimaciones muestran que cerca del 40% del total de la ayuda entregada a los Estados miembros ms pobres retorna a los Estados miembros ms prsperos bajo la forma de contratos por equipamiento o conocimientos tcnicos. 39 Adems de los impactos econmicos, los fondos de cohesin han permitido a los 4 pases beneficiarios aumentar su nivel de retencin de los inmigrantes procedentes del exterior de Europa. De lugares de paso, esos pases se han convertido en destino final para un nmero creciente de inmigrantes en bsqueda de un empleo y condiciones de vida mejores, distendiendo un poco la presin en los otros pases europeos.
34

Desde el 1/5/2004 son Grecia, Portugal, Espaa, Chipre, Repblica Checa, Estonia, Hungra, Letonia, Lituania, Malta, Polonia, Eslovaquia y Eslovenia. 35 MORLEY, Samuel; PASTOR, Robert A.; ROBINSON, Ibid., p.4 36 Traduccin propia. European Commission, Regional Policy and Cohesion: Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions of the European Union (Luxembourg, February 1999), pp. i, 9. 37 Irlanda ya no recibe los fondos, pues su PIB/habitante ha superado el del promedio europeo. 38 Comisin Europea, Tercer Informe sobre la Cohesin Econmica y Social, febrero de 2004, p.3 39 Moussis, Nicolas, Guide des politiques de lEurope, ditions Mols, 4me dition, 1999, p.134

19

Sin duda, se pueden hacer comparaciones entre esa situacin y la que se busca en Amrica del Norte.

2. Posiciones de los actores ante la creacin de un Fondo de Inversiones Norteamericano a. Gobiernos El Presidente mexicano es el que present la propuesta de creacin de un Fondo de Inversiones Norteamericano, en ocasin de su primera visita a Estados Unidos y Canad, en el verano boreal de 2000. En ese entonces, no dio detalles sobre la naturaleza de esa propuesta y se limit a decir que haba que inspirarse en la experiencia europea. El entonces Presidente estadounidense Bill Clinton no se mostr muy abierto a la propuesta de creacin de un fondo norteamericano, tal como fue formulada por el presidente mexicano. El entonces Primer Ministro canadiense, Jean Chrtien, tambin seal rpidamente que no estaba abierto a debatir la propuesta del presidente Fox. En 2003, un alto funcionario del gobierno canadiense indic, sin embargo, en una conferencia del FINA, que el gobierno procuraba que los fondos que inyecta en las instituciones financieras internacionales, como el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID), sirvieran para aumentar el nivel de desarrollo de Mxico, entre otros pases. Aadi que si esas inversiones no daban los resultados esperados, el gobierno canadiense iba a revisar su estrategia. El gobierno de Quebec, por su parte, apoy la idea de crear un fondo de inversiones norteamericano. b. Parlamentarios Sin apoyar la idea de un Fondo de Inversiones, el Informe del Comit Permanente de Asuntos Exteriores y Comercio Internacional de la Cmara de los Comunes canadiense propuso, en diciembre de 2002, que se examinara la idea de crear un mecanismo de ese tipo. Los parlamentarios federales del Bloque Quebequense promueven, en su programa, un Fondo de Inversiones Norteamericano, como el presentado por el Presidente Fox, subrayando que ello tendr repercusiones favorables para los "abandonados" del TLCAN. En cuanto a los legisladores estadounidenses, el senador John Cornyn, republicano de Texas, fue el ms activo en ese mbito, con el depsito de un proyecto de ley (descrito ms abajo) sobre la creacin de un Fondo de Inversiones Norteamericano.

20

c. Actores polticos y econmicos independientes El Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on the future of North America Un grupo especial de trabajo sobre el futuro de Amrica del Norte, creado por el Council on Foreign Relations y que agrupa a personas de los mbitos empresarial, poltico y universitario, tambin recomend, en mayo de 2005, crear un Fondo de Inversin para Amrica del Norte. Ms precisamente, el informe final recomend a Estados Unidos y Canad establecer un Fondo de Inversin para Amrica del Norte que estimule el flujo de capital privado hacia Mxico. El Fondo se enfocara en incrementar y mejorar la infraestructura fsica, ligando las partes menos desarrolladas de Mxico con los mercados del norte, mejorando la educacin primaria y secundaria, y la capacitacin tcnica en estados y municipios comprometidos con la transparencia y el desarrollo institucional. El Grupo aadie que se debe destinar una cantidad relativamente pequea de fondos a la asistencia tcnica para disear y evaluar los proyectos, as como para administracin y capacitacin. Para que el Fondo de Inversin para Amrica del Norte sea eficaz, necesita ayuda significativa de Estados Unidos y Canad, y aportaciones en contrapartida mediante mayores ingresos fiscales de Mxico. El diseo del Fondo debe considerar alternativas como los incentivos y capacidad de absorcin de deuda y de manejo de gobiernos subnacionales para garantizar que los recursos se utilicen eficientemente. 40 Propuesta de Jorge Castaeda et Jos Alberro un Fondo energtico. El candidato a las futuras elecciones presidenciales, y ExSecretario de Relaciones Exteriores, el Dr. Jorge Castaeda, y el economista Dr. Jos Alberro, recomendaron la creacin de un fondo energtico durante la conferencia Hacia la seguridad energtica norteamericana organizada por el FINA, a Monterrey, en 2004. 41 La descripcin de ese fondo energtico se presenta ms abajo. d. Empresas Las empresas no se han pronunciado realmente sobre el tema de un Fondo de Inversiones, aunque algunos representantes empresariales estaban miembros del Council on Foreign Relations Task force. Sin embargo, la creacin de ese mecanismo podra tener repercusiones importantes para empresas que hacen negocios con Mxico. En efecto, por cada dlar que gasta Mxico en importaciones, 70 centavos corresponden a empresas estadounidenses y canadienses. As pues, el retorno de las inversiones podra resultar elevado si se crea ese Fondo.

Council on Foreign Relations, Building a North American Community Report of the independent Task Force on the Future of North America, May 2005. En lnea : www.cfr.org/region/262/nafta.html 41 Disponible en lnea: www.fina-nafi.org/esp/conf04/conf04.asp?langue=esp&menu=conf04

40

21

3. Desafos a. Perfil de los inversores: privados o pblicos. Uno de los principales desafos en torno a la creacin de un fondo de inversiones se relaciona con el tipo de capitales que seran inyectados. Algunos proponen recurrir, como en los fondos europeos, a fondos totalmente pblicos. Otros sostienen que habr que recurrir a fondos privados, considerando el contexto norteamericano y particularmente Estados Unidos, donde la tendencia a recurrir al Estado est mucho menos desarrollada. Por ltimo, una mezcla de fondos pblicos y privados y fondos procedentes de organizaciones internacionales es, para algunos analistas, el camino que debera seguirse. Debe recordarse que el perfil de los inversores podr tener un impacto en el perfil de las personas que administrarn el fondo. b. La amplitud de los montos que se necesitan. Segn las estimaciones de Robinson, Morley y Daz-Bonilla, la diferencia de desarrollo entre Mxico y sus vecinos del norte podr reducirse en un 20 % en diez aos, si el crecimiento de la economa mexicana alcanza el 6 % anual. A fin de llegar a ese nivel de crecimiento, los investigadores estiman que se necesitar un fondo de inversiones que totalice anualmente unos 17 a 20 mil millones de dlares estadounidenses, libres de intereses. Esos mismos autores recuerdan, sin embargo, que el crecimiento de la economa mexicana generara exportaciones adicionales por parte de Estados Unidos y Canad, que pasaran de 5 mil millones de dlares durante los cinco primeros aos a los 20 mil millones de dlares los cinco aos siguientes. 42 La instauracin de un fondo energtico requerira, por su parte, segn las evaluaciones, la inyeccin de 15 mil millones de $ por ao, en un perodo de diez aos. Aunque muy importante, la amplitud de esos montos merece compararse con la amplitud de los costos que generan las consecuencias de la diferencia de desarrollo. En otras palabras, en diez aos, cul es el costo generado por la ausencia de fondos de inversiones en comparacin con el que generar su creacin? 43 c. Ausencia de reforma fiscal en Mxico. Hay quienes sostienen que antes de pensar siquiera en crear un Fondo de Inversiones Norteamericano, Mxico debera proceder primero a una reforma fiscal para aumentar significativamente sus ingresos por la recaudacin de impuestos. Otros consideran que la creacin de un fondo de inversiones debera hacerse simultneamente a la adopcin de una reforma fiscal en Mxico
Pastor, Robert A., The Paramount challenge for North America: Closing the development gap, North American Development Bank, 2005, p.3. En lnea: www.american.edu/ia/cnas/nadb.html 43 En la seccin sobre el control de los flujos migratorios, se ofrecen datos sobre los costos de los controles en las fronteras.
42

22

d. Transparencia y burocracia. La creacin de un fondo de inversiones deber prever, sin duda, la adopcin de medidas para garantizar una gestin transparente de los fondos, a fin de contrarrestar cualquier posibilidad de corrupcin o de desvo de los fondos. Por otra parte, la perspectiva de efectuar gastos importantes que podran servir para alimentar una estructura burocrtica pesada e ineficaz suscita considerables temores. En ese sentido, algunos apoyan la idea de que un fondo de esa ndole pueda ser administrado por una institucin ya existente, como el North American Development Bank, cuyo mandato debera ser ampliado si se le atribuyera la gestin de ese fondo. e. Perfil de los beneficiarios del Fondo. En Europa, se invirtieron fondos comunitarios en regiones de todos los pases de la comunidad europea, incluso en pases favorecidos en el plano econmico. Al respecto, hay quienes consideran que sera ms equitativo destinar fondos a toda regin cuyo nivel de desarrollo se encuentre por debajo de un promedio aceptable, sea en Canad, Estados Unidos o Mxico. Otros subrayan que tambin ser ms fcil suscitar el inters de Estados Unidos y Canad con un fondo de ese tipo. f. Convencer a Estados Unidos y Canad del inters que reviste ese fondo. Uno de los principales obstculos para la creacin de un Fondo de Inversiones Norteamericano reside en la dificultad de convencer a Canad y Estados Unidos del inters de dar curso a esa iniciativa, sobre todo porque se trata de un proyecto costoso y que se inscribe en una perspectiva de largo plazo. Esa dificultad se agrava cuando se trata de un fondo que se formara con dinero pblico. La aceptacin de recurrir a fondos pblicos estadounidenses y canadienses depender del reconocimiento, por los dirigentes estadounidenses y canadienses, de que redunda en su inters el hecho de que Mxico reduzca su brecha de desarrollo y de que pueden convencer de ello a sus electores. En tal sentido, queda por demostrar que esa iniciativa podra tener repercusiones positivas en, por ejemplo, la seguridad nacional estadounidense, el crecimiento econmico de Estados Unidos y Canad, la diversificacin de las exportaciones canadienses, las prdidas de empleos causadas por la deslocalizacin de empresas estadounidenses y canadienses que se instalan en Mxico o en las condiciones de trabajo en Canad y Estados Unidos.

23

4. Pistas de accin 1. Creacin de un Fondo de Inversiones Norteamericano destinado a Mxico e inspirado en el ejemplo europeo de los fondos de cohesin, con fondos pblicos y estableciendo ciertas condiciones a cambio de la creacin del Fondo. Al respecto, el proyecto de ley presentado en octubre de 2004 por el Senador republicano John Cornyn constituye un ejemplo detallado de ese tipo de fondo. Proyecto de ley del Senador Cornyn. 44 El proyecto de ley propone autorizar al presidente estadounidense a negociar la creacin de un Fondo de Inversiones Norteamericano a fin de: (1) promover la integracin econmica y de infraestructura entre Canad, Mxico y Estados Unidos; (2) promover la educacin y el desarrollo econmico en Mxico; y (3) reducir la brecha econmica entre Mxico y Canad, y entre Mxico y Estados Unidos. El proyecto de ley seala que el fondo deber atribuir subvenciones que permitan: (1) construir carreteras en Mxico para facilitar el comercio entre Mxico y Canad y entre Mxico y Estados Unidos; (2) desarrollar y ejecutar programas de educacin posterior al nivel secundario en Mxico; (3) instalar tecnologas de telecomunicaciones en todo Mxico. El proyecto de ley seala Canad y Estados Unidos deberan establecer ese Fondo slo si el gobierno de Mxico: (1) aumenta los ingresos por la recaudacin de impuestos, a fin de alcanzar un nivel de ingresos igual al 16 % del producto bruto interno (PIB) de Mxico; y (2) conduce un programa de reformas econmicas para aumentar la estabilidad econmica de Mxico. El proyecto de ley seala que el Fondo debera operar por un perodo de 10 aos, a menos que los tres socios acuerden prolongar el perodo de funcionamiento del Fondo. 2. Otra variante del tipo de Fondo presentado en el punto 1) podra ser que el Fondo fuera accesible a todas las regiones de Amrica del Norte (incluidas las regiones estadounidenses y canadienses) cuyo nivel de ingresos por habitante est por debajo de cierto porcentaje del promedio norteamericano. 3. Podra considerarse tambin la creacin de un Fondo energtico norteamericano que utilice los recursos energticos mexicanos como motor de desarrollo y que se base,
El proyecto de ley fue ledo dos veces y transferido al "Committee on Foreign Relations". Puede consultarse en lnea en la direccin: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2941:
44

24

en lo esencial, en la inyeccin de fondos privados o en una mezcla de fondos privados, pblicos e internacionales. Al respecto, la propuesta presentada en la conferencia del FINA por Jorge Castaeda y Jos Alberro es la ms elaborada y puede resumirse de la manera siguiente 45 : a. Creacin de un fondo en fideicomiso (trust) con sede en Estados Unidos o Canad, que podra, sobre la base de acuerdos de locacin con PEMEX, obtener financiacin para adquirir equipamiento petrolfero (como plataformas de perforacin) y alquilarlo a PEMEX para que esta pueda aumentar su explotacin petrolera. Los equipos petroleros utilizados no seran propiedad de PEMEX, pero le permitiran aumentar su produccin y sus exportaciones sin tener que comprar equipos, para lo que se requieren enormes sumas de dinero, que la empresa no tiene. Al trmino de 5-6 aos, PEMEX podra duplicar su produccin petrolera y destinar esa mayor produccin al mercado estadounidense donde la demanda energtica est aumentando, al tiempo que obtendra ganancias suficientes para constituir un fondo de desarrollo para Mxico, como los fondos de que se benefician algunos pases europeos. Es importante sealar que tal mecanismo respetara la constitucin mexicana, que confiere a PEMEX el monopolio del sector petrolero mexicano y prohbe las inversiones extranjeras en ese sector estratgico. b. La creacin de un Fondo Energtico permitira al Estado Mexicano financiar un fondo de desarrollo centrado en las necesidades sociales de Mxico, que sera administrado totalmente por Mxico. Con los 10 billones de dlares por ao adicionales generados por el Fondo energtico, el Dr. Alberro considera que el gobierno mexicano podra doblar sus gastos en ciencia y tecnologa, incrementando en un 50% su presupuesto para la aplicacin de la ley y la justicia e incrementar en un 25% las inversiones en el sector educativo y de salud. Tales reformas estimularan la economa a largo plazo y reduciran la problemtica poltica y social ligada con el desequilibrio de desarrollo entre Mxico y sus vecinos del Norte.

El estudio de Jos Alberro donde detalla el funcionamiento de esa propuesta est disponible en ingls en el sitio del FINA: www.fina-nafi.org/esp/conf04/resultats.asp?langue=esp&menu=conf04 El mecanismo tambin se describe en el informe final de la conferencia del FINA de 2004.

45

25

Bibliografa

Alberro, Jos Luis, A Mexican Development Fund financed by oil revenues: putting the Guanajuato proposal to work, Forging North American Energy Security conference, Monterrey, April 2004. En lnea: www.fina-nafi.org/esp/conf04/resultats.asp?langue=esp&menu=conf04 Commission europenne, Troisime rapport sur la cohsion conomique et sociale, fvrier 2004. Council on Foreign Relations, Building a North American Community Report of the independent Task Force on the Future of North America, May 2005. En lnea : www.cfr.org/region/262/nafta.html European Commission, First Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, 1996, Office for Official Publications of the European Commission, Luxembourg, 1996. European Commission, Regional Policy and Cohesion: Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic Situation and Development of the Regions of the European Union, (Luxembourg, February 1999). Foro sobre la Integracin Norte Americana (FINA), Hacia una seguridad energtica norteamericana - Reporte Final, 1 y 2 de Abril, 2004, Monterrey. En lnea: www.fina-nafi.org/esp/conf04/conf04.asp?langue=esp&menu=conf04 Morley, Samuel; Pastor, Robert A.; Robinson, Sherman, Closing the development gap: A proposal for a North American investment fund, Ms all del libre comercio consolidar Amrica del Norte (conferencia del FINA), Montreal, 3 de agosto del 2003. En lnea: www.finanafi.org/dossiers_fr.html MOUSSIS, Nicolas, Guide des politiques de lEurope, ditions MOLS, 4me dition, 1999. Pastor, Robert A. & Frchette, Christine, Quand le libre-change ne suffit pas De lintrt crer un Fonds dinvestissement nord-amricain, Annuaire du Qubec, ditions Fides, dcembre 2003; Pastor, Robert, A Regional Development Policy for North America: Adapting the European Model, in NAFTA in the New Millenium, Edited by Edward J. Chambers & Peter Smith.

Pastor, Robert A., Help Mexico, lift all boats, Miami Herald, March 8, 2006. En lnea : www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/14043410.htm Pastor, Robert A., The Paramount challenge for North America: Closing the development gap, North American Development Bank, 2005. En lnea: www.american.edu/ia/cnas/nadb.html Partenaires en Amrique du Nord, Cultiver les relations du Canada avec les tats-Unis et le Mexique, Rapport du Comit permanent des affaires trangres et du commerce international, Ottawa, Dcembre 2002. En lnea : www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/37/2/FAIT/Studies/Reports/faitrp03-f.htm

26

C) EL CONTROL DE LOS FLUJOS MIGRATORIOS

1. Contextualizacin Los presidentes Bill Clinton y Carlos Salinas tenan la esperanza de que la firma del TLCAN, en 1994, disminuira el problema de inmigracin ilegal mexicana hacia Estados Unidos, sobre todo gracias a la creacin de empleos que el acuerdo generara. Sin embargo, se comprueba que la inmigracin ilegal ha seguido creciendo, alcanzando hoy una amplitud que exige un cuestionamiento sobre el tipo de estrategia que debe adoptarse frente a este problema. a. Immigracin ilegal Estados Unidos y Canad tienen una frontera en comn que se extiende a lo largo de 8.895 kilmetros. Ms de un milln de personas por ao 46 cruzan esta frontera, considerada como la frontera no militarizada ms larga del mundo, sin contar las incursiones ilegales que preocupan en alto grado a los dirigentes canadienses y estadounidenses encargados del control de las fronteras. Ms al sur, la frontera estadounidense-mexicana se extiende a lo largo de 3.141 kilmetros y la cruzan ms de 300 millones de personas por ao 47 . La existencia de una importante diferencia de desarrollo entre ambos pases vecinos genera un gran problema de inmigracin ilegal. A pesar de que 1,2 millones de personas procedentes de Mxico cruzan legalmente esta frontera por da, no menos de un milln de mexicanos y 350.000 centroamericanos por ao intentan ingresar ilegalmente en Estados Unidos 48 , la mayora de las veces para buscar un empleo. Cabe sealar que los mexicanos forman actualmente el 60 % de la poblacin ilegal establecida en Estados Unidos (5,3 millones de mexicanos contra 47.000 canadienses en 2002) 49 . b. Control de la inmigracin Para Washington, los ataques terroristas de septiembre de 2001 dieron al tema de los migrantes ilegales, procedentes de Mxico y de Canad, otra dimensin. As, la inmigracin ilegal se convirti en un problema de seguridad nacional, al mismo nivel que el terrorismo, el contrabando o el trfico de estupefacientes y de armas de fuego. Esa visin de la inmigracin a partir de la cuestin de la seguridad conllev un refuerzo de la vigilancia y los controles fronterizos. No obstante, se ha podido observar en Estados Unidos, desde hace unos veinte aos, que el nmero de ilegales procedentes de
Sobre las fronteras, consultar : Waller Meyers, Deborah, Does smarter leads to safer? , (Migration Policy Institute, 2003) En lnea. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/6-13-0~1.PDF. 47 Id. 48 Paranagua, Paulo A. 2006. Le Mexique critique le projet amricain de mur frontalier entre les deux pays , Le Monde International (9 de febrero): 4. 49 MPI Staff, The US-Mexico Border , (Migration Policy Institute, 2002) En lnea. http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=32.
46

27

la frontera aument en casi 11 millones de personas, a pesar de los aumentos constantes de financiacin destinada al control de esa frontera. El Migration Policy Institute 50 habla de un aumento del 519% de la financiacin de los programas de proteccin de las fronteras. Hay quienes sostienen que el principal impacto que acarrea un enfoque coercitivo es que las incursiones de inmigrantes ilegales se vuelven ms peligrosas, y no que los inmigrantes desisten de hacerlas. Segn las autoridades mexicanas 51 , cerca de 400 personas mueren en las zonas desrticas que rodean la frontera, 431 en 2004 y 373 en 2005 52 .Algunos consideran que " le nombre rel de victimes serait deux trois fois suprieur " 53 . Canad no est exento de reproches para algunos representantes polticos estadounidenses, ya que, desde septiembre de 2001, numerosas crticas se han hecho or desde el lado estadounidense hacia el vecino 54 canadiense, acusndolo de ser negligente y de albergar a "un nido de organizaciones terroristas". Es necesario hallar soluciones comunes, pues no ser posible controlar eficazmente las fronteras norteamericanas de manera unilateral. c. Acciones emprendidas por el Congreso Federal estadounidense. En Washington, la Cmara federal de Representantes adopt, en diciembre de 2005, un proyecto de ley para hacer ms segura la frontera sur: la "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005" (H.R. 4437 55 ), presentada por el representante republicano del quinto distrito de Wisconsin, F. James Sensenbrenner. Este proyecto de ley prev, en particular: 1. la construccin de un muro de 1.130 km en la frontera estadounidense-mexicana; 2. el aumento del efectivo de patrulla y vigilancia; 3. la criminalizacin de los grupos humanitarios que ayuden a los inmigrantes ilegales; 4. la criminalizacin del estatuto de migrante ilegal; 5. la instauracin de castigos ms estrictos para los empleadores de inmigrantes ilegales.

50 51

Consultar el sitio de Internet : www.migrationpolicy.org Las autoridades americanas y mexicanas se ponen de acuerdo sobre la cuestin del nmero de muertos. 52 Pan, Esther, U.S.-Mexico Border Woes , (Council on foreign relations, 2006) En lnea. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9909/usmexico_border_woes.html. 53 Stolz, Jolle. 2005. Au bout du rve amricain des immigrs illgaux mexicains, la mort dans le dsert, Le Monde International, ( 15 de noviembre) : 6. 54 J. Simpson. Still the worlds longest undefended border ? , Globe and Mail, 12 de septiembre 2003 : A19. 55 Para leer el proyecto de ley vaya a http://thomas.loc.gov/ (The Library of Congress).

28

Para sus promotores, el objetivo de este proyecto de ley es permitir la disminucin de ilegales que cruzan la frontera y del nmero de crmenes perpetrados por ilegales. Apunta, tambin, a paliar la aparente ineficacia de las leyes y medidas vigentes en la actualidad. El texto deber debatirse en el Senado antes de fines de marzo de 2006. Recordemos que esta ley fue muy cuestionada y criticada, sobre todo por el presidente Vicente Fox, que la calific de "vergonzosa" y apel, en cambio, a la cooperacin. d. La divisin de los poderes en los pases norteamericanos Los tres pases norteamericanos tienen una organizacin poltica de tipo federal, pero de naturaleza muy diferente en cuanto a la divisin de los poderes. Mxico. El poder est muy centralizado en Mxico. El artculo 89 de la constitucin mexicana de 1917 atribuye a las autoridades federales la direccin de la poltica exterior y los tratados internacionales. As, las decisiones en materia de control de los flujos migratorios incumben a las autoridades federales. En Canad, la inmigracin es una jurisdiccin compartida. Las disposiciones del artculo 95 de la Ley constitucional de 1867 de Canad prevn que las cuestiones de inmigracin son de jurisdiccin comn de los gobiernos provinciales y federal. Quebec y Ontario, desde mediados de los aos sesenta, se preocupan en mayor medida por los temas de inmigracin. Quebec tiene su propio ministerio de inmigracin desde 1968 (el Ministerio de Comunidades Culturales e Inmigracin). En Estados Unidos, la Constitucin estadounidense otorga al Presidente el poder de concertar tratados internacionales y prohbe a los Estados hacerlo (Artculo II, Seccin 2; Artculo I, Seccin 10). La defensa y el control de la inmigracin son jurisdicciones federales.

2. Actores en presencia a. Estados Unidos i. La Cmara federal de Representantes El texto del proyecto de ley H.R. 4437 fue aprobado en la Cmara federal de Representantes con una mayora de 239 votos "a favor" y 182 votos "en contra". Entre los votos expresados, 203 apoyos procedan de los republicanos y 164 rechazos procedan de los demcratas. Los promotores de este proyecto de ley creen que el mejor medio de prevenir la inmigracin ilegal es el de la disuasin. Para ellos, hacer que la ilegalidad sea ms peligrosa y difcil reducira el nmero de inmigrantes ilegales en suelo estadounidense. Sin embargo, ser difcil, segn Esther Pan del Council on Foreign Relations, reconciliar las prioridades del Senado y de la Cmara de Representantes, pues las posiciones estn muy polarizadas.

29

La Cmara de Representantes sostuvo una posicin ms dura que la que probablemente sostendr el Senado. " There is a very strong law-and-order nativist element in the House ", segn Julia Sweig, Directora del Latin American Studies del Council on Foreign Relations. El Diputado Tom Tancredo, que representa esta tendencia ms dura en la Cmara, reconoce que esa ley no podr aprobarse tal como est redactada actualmente. "We know that not all of our ideas will become law [], [but] we must push forward with securing our border, building a fence and deploying military technology. We must reinvest meaning in citizenship, getting rid of the incentive to birth so-called anchor babies on U.S. soil. " 56 . ii. Los senadores Los senadores examinarn la versin de la Cmara de Representantes el 4 de marzo, y debatirn la ley al final del mes. Segn Steve Camarota, Director de Investigaciones del Center for immigration studies 57 , "the Senate is likely to pass a very different bill from the House version" 58 (probablemente el Senado apruebe una ley muy diferente de la versin que propone el Senado). Si los senadores estn de acuerdo sobre la adopcin de este proyecto de ley, su versin debera contener disposiciones ms cercanas a las ideas sostenidas por influyentes senadores como John Mc Cain, y Ted Kennedy 59 , en el sentido de que deberan adoptarse el guest worker program y una amnista para los ilegales que ya se encuentran en el territorio estadounidense. iii. El gobierno federal En su State of the Union address del 31 de enero, el Presidente subray la necesidad de implantar un programa de trabajadores invitados (guest worker program) gracias al cual un mayor nmero de mexicanos podran trabajar en Estados Unidos por un perodo limitado: "we must have stronger immigration enforcement and border protection. And we must have a rational, humane guest worker program that rejects amnesty, allows temporary jobs for people who seek them legally, and reduces smuggling and crime at the border." 60 . b. Mxico El proyecto de ley Sensenbrenner es visto negativamente por Mxico. El Parlamento mexicano envi a Washington DC, a mediados de febrero de 2006, una delegacin de diputados y senadores mexicanos a fin de presionar ante las comisiones de inmigracin de las dos cmaras del Congreso Federal estadounidense: "We will promote a migration reform that is clear and consise, emphasize the need to protect the rights of migrants already il the United States as well as seek for reasonable number of temporary work
Sitio de Internet del congresista Tom Tancredo : http://tancredo.house.gov/Coalition/coalition.htm. Sitio de Internet del Center for immigration studies : http://www.cis.org/. 58 Pan, Esther, U.S.-Mexico Border Woes , (Council on foreign relations, 2006) En lnea. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9909/usmexico_border_woes.html. 59 Id. 60 Para leer el State of the Union address del 31 de enero: http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html.
57 56

30

visas to encourage legal immigration" 61 . stos apoyan la implantacin de un guest worker program y la legalizacin del estatuto de los inmigrantes ilegales en Estados Unidos. El Presidente Vicente Fox, en reaccin al anuncio del proyecto de ley H.R. 4437, recordaba: "sera difcil explicarse qu sera de la economa norteamericana si no fuera por la enorme contribucin, por la productividad, por la calidad del trabajo de nuestros paisanos all [] los inmigrantes mexicanos contribuyen "mucho" a la economa estadounidense " 62 . c. Canad Hasta el presente, las autoridades canadienses no se han pronunciado claramente ni sobre la cuestin de la inmigracin ilegal mexicana que ingresa en Estados Unidos, ni sobre la posible adopcin del proyecto de ley Sensenbrenner (H.R. 4437), aunque el espritu del proyecto de ley no corresponda a la modalidad de colaboracin promovida por los dirigentes norteamericanos y la construccin de un muro podra restringir el acceso al territorio mexicano por va terrestre, as como podra aumentar el tiempo necesario para los trmites aduaneros. d. Las organizaciones no gubernamentales En las ONG, se enfrentan diferentes corrientes de pensamiento. Algunas se posicionan en contra de un endurecimiento de las medidas de control en las fronteras y otras sostienen ms bien lo contrario. i. ONG en contra de un endurecimiento de las medidas de control en las fronteras Algunas organizaciones proponen optar por una mayor cooperacin entre Mxico y Estados Unidos. Se pronuncian en contra de la propuesta del Representante Sensenbrenner por su carcter drstico y unilateral. Sostienen que el hecho de construir un muro y reforzar las leyes de inmigracin no impedir que los mexicanos intenten cruzar las fronteras en bsqueda de una mejor calidad de vida y un empleo:
La Red de la Accin Fronteriza Human Rights Watch Amnistie Internationale, division Mexique League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) National Council of La Raza (NCLR) Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
61

http://www.borderaction.org/index.php http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/14/usdom12282.htm http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/Mex-summary-eng www.lulac.org www.nclr.org www.maldef.org

AP/EL Universal. Delegation to lobby U.S. on migration , The Herald, Mexico, 14 de febrero 2006: 1. Univision Online. 2005. Fox critica plan de seguridad fronteriza Mandatario dice que es una vergenza (15 de Diciembre) En lnea. http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=758167.
62

31

Fund (MALDEF) National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund

www.naleo.org

Los agricultores estadounidenses y algunos grupos de empresarios tambin se han pronunciado en contra de un refuerzo de las medidas de control de los flujos migratorios. Los granjeros y las empresas necesitan particularmente la mano de obra procedente de Mxico y deploran que se emita un nmero de visas de trabajo insuficiente con respecto a la demanda. Han manifestado su descontento con el hecho de que la H.R. 4437 haya pasado a la Cmara de Representantes federal, sobre todo en lo relativo a la ausencia de disposiciones sobre la creacin de un programa de trabajadores invitados (guest worker program):

La American Farm Bureau Federation The Associated General Contractors of America. Essential Workers Immigrant Coalition Laborers International Union of North America

www.fb.org/news/nr/nr2006/nr0207a.html www.agc.org www.ewic.org www.liuna.org

ii. ONG en favor de un endurecimiento de las medidas de control en las fronteras Algunos grupos estadounidenses se posicionan en favor de una proteccin de las fronteras y un mayor control de la inmigracin en Estados Unidos. Segn ellos, los mejores medios para protegerse contra la inmigracin ilegal son la proteccin fsica de la frontera, un mayor control de la inmigracin por medios tecnolgicos, como radares, sensores, etc.
Americans for Legal Immigration Alabama minutemen Americans for Better Immigration Le CT, Citizens http://alipac.us/index.php

www.amist.us/ www.betterimmigration.com/

www.ctcitizensforimmigrationcontrol.com/aboutus.html

32

3. Principales retos Las posiciones difieren en cuanto a la naturaleza del problema de la inmigracin y en cuanto al tipo de enfoque que se debe adoptar para resolverlo. Los participantes debern examinar estos diferentes retos. a. Naturaleza del problema de la inmigracin i. Interna, bilateral o trilateral Algunos consideran que la cuestin de los flujos migratorios y la inmigracin es un problema de poltica interna. Otros sostienen, ms bien, que las cuestiones de frontera son bilaterales. Por otra parte, hay quienes afirman que el problema es trilateral, habida cuenta de los impactos econmicos y polticos de la inmigracin y las migraciones ilegales en la salud de la asociacin norteamericana. ii-De seguridad y/o de economa Los actores interesados en esta cuestin sostendrn que el problema es de seguridad, o que es econmico, o que es una combinacin de ambos. Como hemos mencionado anteriormente, desde los ataques terroristas contra el World Trade Center, el tema de las fronteras es considerado como un problema de seguridad. Sin embargo, el propio Presidente estadounidense mismo propone una solucin de naturaleza econmica, es decir un guest worker program. b. Tipo de enfoque: coercin o apertura i. La coercin Para algunos actores, la adopcin de un enfoque coercitivo reforzado reducira eficazmente la inmigracin ilegal. La disuasin es, para ellos, la manera ms eficaz de limitar las migraciones ilegales. Para F. Jonh Sensenbrenner, "H.R. 4437 will help restore the integrity of our Nation's borders and re-establish respect for our laws" 63 . En cambio, "experts say that over the last two decades, funds invested in border control and measures to limit illegal immigration [] have skyrocketed. But the number of illegal immigrants is still increasing" 64 . En el mismo orden de ideas, la demcrata disidente Loreta Sanchez, representante del 47 distrito de California, sostuvo en la cmara que " enforcement alone does not work. As we know, throwing more money at our broken immigration system and putting more agents at the border hasn't led to fewer undocumented immigrants [] From 1993 to 2004, the number of Border Patrol agents tripled from about 4,000 to 11,000 and the amount of spending has gone up five times, from 740 million to 3.8 billion, yet the number of undocumented immigrants doubled from 4.5 million to 9.3 million ".

Report of the Committee on the Judiciary sur H.R. 4437 : http://www.congress.gov/cgibin/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr345 64 Pan, Esther, U.S.-Mexico Border Woes , (Council on foreign relations, 2006) En lnea. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9909/usmexico_border_woes.html

63

33

El impacto de un refuerzo de la coercin en la frontera es complejo y algunos actores subrayan sus efectos colaterales: a) En el plano humanitario: algunos consideran que la adopcin de un enfoque coercitivo reforzado amenazar en mayor medida la vida de los que de todos modos intenten cruzar la frontera. Como hemos mencionado ms arriba, numerosas personas mueren en ese tipo de intentos, debido a los obstculos que se les interponen en el cruce. b) En el plano econmico: Estas medidas acarrearn una demora de los cruces legtimos de las fronteras, sean comerciales, tursticos o vinculados al trabajo. Hay quienes sostienen que ello va en contra de la filosofa de la creacin de un rea de libre comercio donde prevalezca la libre circulacin de bienes y el acceso al mercado sin obstculos para los socios.

ii. La apertura Dilogo y trilogo: Para algunos, Mxico, Canad y Estados Unidos deberan encontrar medios comunes (bilaterales o trilaterales) para facilitar la gestin de los flujos migratorios en Amrica del Norte. stos sostienen que ello permitira un mayor control sobre la movilidad de las personas y alentara la migracin legal. En una entrevista con el Washington Post el 12 de enero de 2006, el embajador mexicano en Estados Unidos, seor Carlos de Icaza, subrayaba que: "The immigration issue is not a domestic policy concern. [] The only way in which we can tackle the immigration challenge is through international cooperation. [] The US economy demands every year around 500,000 low-skilled workers and only offers around 5,000 visas for this category [] Building a legal way for migrants to work in the US and return home [would be part of the solution] 65 ". Como hemos dicho ms arriba, en el centro de los debates se halla el tema de la concesin de un mayor nmero de visas de trabajo por parte de Estados Unidos (el guest worker program, por ejemplo) y Canad para los "low-skilled workers" mexicanos. Esta va es promovida, en particular, por el Presidente Bush, los parlamentarios mexicanos y el Presidente Fox. En el plano interno, la amnista: El President Fox y algunos miembros del Congreso Federal estadounidense sostienen que habra que conceder una amnista a los inmigrantes ilegales ya presentes en el suelo estadounidense para permitirles contribuir plenamente a la sociedad estadounidense y salir del mercado de trabajo "en negro" o ilegal. Otros denuncian esta postura y sostienen que esa iniciativa dara un mensaje de aliento a los que prevn inmigrar ilegalmente a Estados Unidos. Adems, denuncian el hecho de que una amnista sera un apoyo a las personas que han infringido la ley, al tiempo que desalentara a quienes llevan aos tratando de inmigrar por va legal.

Carlos de Icaza, Ambassador Discusses U.S. - Mexico Relations , Washington Post (Washington), 12 de enero 2006. En lnea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/10/ DI2006011001028.html.

65

34

4. Pistas de accin Numerosas pistas de accin pueden contemplarse en el mbito del control de los flujos migratorios dentro del espacio norteamericano. El objetivo de las que presentamos a continuacin es orientar a los miembros de la comisin de inmigracin. 1. La ley H.R. 4437, antes mencionada, prev principalmente la construccin de un muro doble de 1.130 Km. a lo largo de la frontera estadounidense-mexicana, el perfeccionamiento de las tecnologas de deteccin (radares, sondas, satlites) en la frontera, la criminalizacin del estatuto de inmigrante ilegal, as como la creacin de un sistema de verificacin que permita reconocer la autenticidad del nmero de seguridad social de los solicitantes de empleo. Adems, contempla la criminalizacin de los grupos humanitarios que ayudan a los inmigrantes ilegales, as como la instauracin de multas ms estrictas para los empleadores de inmigrantes ilegales. Este proyecto de ley prev, adems, la detencin obligatoria de los migrantes ilegales hasta que sean deportados. 2. La creacin de un espacio de informacin norteamericano puede ser una de las ideas por debatir. El desarrollo de ese espacio exigira que los gobiernos inviertan conjuntamente en la mejora de las infraestructuras, la estandarizacin de las tecnologas de control, as como un esfuerzo mayor de intercambio de informacin entre los organismos de informacin, y tambin la posible creacin de una legislacin comn sobre la proteccin de los datos personales de los ciudadanos. Ello exigira un gran esfuerzo de cooperacin y un esfuerzo de ayuda econmica a Canad y a Mxico por parte de Estados Unidos. Cabe sealar que se han logrado algunos avances en este sentido. Estados Unidos y Mxico firmaron, en marzo de 2002, y Canad y Estados Unidos, en diciembre de 2001 66 , un acuerdo sobre el intercambio de informacin, los Smart Border Agreements 67 , que supone una cooperacin limitada en diferentes mbitos, como la inspeccin de las fronteras, el control aduanero anticipado de los bienes y las personas, la coordinacin de las bases de datos y los identificadores biomtricos.

Por ms informacin: White House. Office of the Press Secretary. 9 septembre 2002. Summary of Smart Border Action Plan Status En ligne : http://www.usembassycanada.gov/content/textonly.asp?section=can_usa &subsection1=borderissues&document=borderissues_smartbordersummary_090902 (page consulte en mars 2006). 67 Por ms informacin sobre los Smart border Accords: Meyers, Deborah (2003) : Does Smarter Lead to Safer ? An Assessment of the Border Accords with Canada and MexicoI, Migration Policy Institute Insight, no. 2 (junio). En lnea : http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/6-13-0~1.PDF

66

35

Los participantes tambin podrn tomar en consideracin los esfuerzos anteriores de los gobiernos sobre la movilidad de los individuos, como NEXUS y SENTRI; el US TIPOFF, una base de datos norteamericana dedicada a la lucha contra el terrorismo; los Advance Passenger Information Systems 68 y el Joint Passenger Analysis Units 69 utilizados para la industria area. 3. Canad podra ampliar el papel que asume en materia de inmigracin norteamericana, sobre todo facilitando en mayor medida la llegada de trabajadores mexicanos. Acaso Canad no se beneficiara con un acuerdo que le permitiera acoger a un mayor nmero de trabajadores procedentes de Mxico, habida cuenta de la demanda canadiense de trabajadores y de los problemas demogrficos que el pas experimenta actualmente? Canad slo tiene un programa al respecto, el Programme de travailleurs agricoles saisonniers (PTAS) de 1974, que instituye, por ejemplo, una colaboracin entre Mxico y Canad para que se observen las leyes migratorias y se respeten los derechos de los trabajadores. 4. A la imagen de varios "think tanks" estadounidenses, los participantes podran intentar facilitar la obtencin de visas de trabajo temporarias. La creacin de una suerte de migracin circular podra limitar el nmero de cruces ilegales, ya que facilitara la ida y la vuelta, para el trabajo estacional, sobre todo, de personas que desean trabajar en Estados Unidos. La instauracin del guest worker program podra inspirar a los participantes. Al respecto, el Migration policy institute, un grupo de reflexin estadounidense sobre las polticas de inmigracin nos seala que "research shows employment is the primary motivation for illegal immigration to the United States. While acknowledging the needs of American employers, [] any effective policy to stem the flow of illegal migration must also focus on workplace enforcement, which requires an effective way for employers to verify that those they hire are authorized to work in the United States" 70 5. En el marco de un acuerdo internacional sobre inmigracin, se podra considerar la legalizacin de las personas sin estatuto legal que ya se encuentran en el territorio estadounidense. Lo que podra realizarse por va de la amnista o la creacin de un programa de legalizacin en tratamiento acelerado.

US Custom and Border Protection. 2006. Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) Fact Sheet En ligne : http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/inspections_carriers_facilities/apis/apis_factsheet.xml (page consulte le 3 mars 2006). 69 White House. Office of the Press Secretary. (6 de septiembre 2002). U.S. - Canada Smart Border/30 Point Action Plan Update http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021206-1.html 70 Migration policy institute. Making Immigration Enforcement Work: What Will It Take? En lnea: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/ITFIAF/1206_releases.php

68

36

6. La instauracin de un Fondo de Desarrollo para Amrica del Norte que permitira disminuir la brecha de desarrollo que persiste entre Mxico y sus vecinos del Norte, y que incita a la mayora de los inmigrantes ilegales a abandonar Mxico y a tratar de ingresar en Estados Unidos, como propone el Presidente mexicano Vicente Fox.

37

Bibliografa
AP/EL Universal. Delegation to lobby U.S. on migration , The Herald, Mexico, 14 de febrero 2006: 1. Icaza, Carlos de. 2006. Ambassador Discusses U.S.- Mexico Relations , Washington Post (Washington), 12 de enero. En lnea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/discussion/2006/01/10/DI2006011001028.html. J. Simpson. Still the worlds longest undefended border ? , Globe and Mail, 12 de septiembre 2001 : A19. Migration Policy Institute. Making Immigration Enforcement Work: What Will It Take? En lnea: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/ITFIAF/1206_releases.php MPI Staff, The US-Mexico Border , (Migration Policy Institute, 2002) En lnea. http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=32. Pan, Esther, U.S.-Mexico Border Woes , (Council on foreign relations, 2006) En lnea. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9909/usmexico_border_woes.html. Paranagua, Paulo A. 2006. Le Mexique critique le projet amricain de mur frontalier entre les deux pays , Le Monde International (9 de febrero): 4. Stolz, Jolle. 2005. Au bout du rve amricain des immigrs illgaux mexicains, la mort dans le dsert, Le Monde International, (15 de noviembre): 6. Univision Online. (2005). Fox critica plan de seguridad fronteriza Mandatario dice que es una vergenza (15 de Diciembre) En lnea : http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=758167. US Custom and Border Protection. 2006. Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) Fact En lnea : Sheet http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/inspections_carriers_facilities/apis/apis_factsheet.xml. Waller Meyers, Deborah, Does smarter leads to safer? , (Migration Policy Institute, 2003) En lnea. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/6-13-0~1.PDF . White House. Office of the Press Secretary. 6 de septiembre 2002. U.S. - Canada Smart Border/30 Point Action Plan Update http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021206-1.html. White House. Office of the Press Secretary. (2002). Summary of Smart Border Action Plan Status En lnea: http://www.usembassycanada.gov/content/textonly.asp?section=can_usa&subsection1=border issues&document=borderissues_smartbordersummary_090902.

38

Pginas Web

The library of Congress : http://thomas.loc.gov/ Report of the committee on the judiciary house of representatives to accompany H.R. 4437 together with additional and dissenting views: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr345)

H.R. 4437 : Versin PDF: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h4437rfs.txt.pdf (con contrasea) Versin HTML : http://thomas.loc.gov/ Secretara de Relaciones Exteriores canadiense : http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canam/main/border/default-fr.asp Migration Policy Institute: http://www.migrationpolicy.org

39

D) ACADEMIC MOBILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

1. Context Canada, the United States of American and Mexico share historical, cultural, linguistic and economic bonds. These historic ties have not however been successfully translated into extensive educational networks. In light of new trilateral dialogue focusing primarily on security issues and the creation of a new North America economic space, new hope regarding the development of higher education networks emerges. All three countries acknowledge the fact that economic development and prosperity partly depends on an enriched, productive and educated labour force and human capital. In an ever growing globalized society, new international skills are required. Student and faculty mobility is an effective way of responding to these international needs and allows North Americans to be competitive on the international market. Furthermore student mobility and the international market for global higher education is a booming market. In 2002, 1.9 million students were being educated at the tertiary level in countries other than their homes. 94% were studying in an OECD country. The United States received 30% of the total students studying abroad while the European Union enrolled 47% and Australia 10%. 71 A report from IDP Education Australia predicted that by 2025, almost eight million students will be educated transnationally. 72 This growing market represents great potential both economically and educationally. The United States dominance in the international higher education market has however, since 9/11, suffered a drop in the enrolment of foreign students. On the other hand Europe and Australia have been successfully increasing the percentage of foreign students studying in their respective countries. European countries as well as Australia and Canada have been able to lure the post 9/11 foreign students to their universities. Europe is growing more and more attractive to foreign students, due to its Bologna Program and the ERASMUS plan. The goal of the European Commission is to reach 3 million students by 2010. More than just an interesting market, academic mobility allows cohesion and growth of a region. Cooperation on a North American level could allow North American countries to claim a bigger part of this growing market as well as help develop a North American identity. All three North American countries are interested and active in developing student mobility partnerships. However, they also seem to neglect the most obvious partnership, the North American partnership. Instead they are developing relations with non North Americans or bilateral relations between with each other. If North Americans do not take action regarding academic mobility they will probably regret it. European students will have a considerable advantage over North American students as
Nick Clark and Robert Sedgwick, Internal Students: Its a Buyer Market (World Education News and Reviews August 2005) Online. http://www.wes.org/ewenr/PF/05july/pffeature.htm 72 Institute of International Education Atlas of Student Mobility Online. http://www.atlas.iienetwork.org/?p=46572
71

40

they will have had access to a more complete and diverse education and training at a lower personal cost throughout their higher education. Their access to different countries will allow them to be more proficient in languages as well as more productive in the international context. North America economic development and labor force may be penalized in the long term if it doesnt inscribe academic mobility as a priority. It is important that North American students be able to benefit from the cultures and knowledge at their door step. In order to truly integrate academic mobility within a North American context, greater steps must be taken in coordinating and creating joint programs, developing a credit transferability program, promotion and diffusion of the information, and most importantly funding at a government level. Only through a government commitment accompanied by adequate funding and aggressive marketing will academic mobility grow in the region. Preliminary networks are already established through CONAHEC, other national associations such as ANUIES and AUCC, and North American Centers. An academic mobility program would not only help ensure a better education for the students but it would also encourage the development of a North American identity. a. The North American share of the international higher education market i. Canada Canada is a fairly popular destination for international students. It is the forth-leading place of origin for students in the United States and the seventh for Mexican students. In the academic year 2004/05, 28,140 students from Canada were studying in the United States (up 4% from the previous year) 73 . Although the USA is a popular Canadian destination the contrary is not true. Canada does not figure in the 20 leading destinations of US study abroad students 74 . According to the Institute of International Education only 1,054 75 Americans were studying in Canada in 2003-04 76 . This represents a decrease of 12% from 2002-03.

73 Institute of International Education, Background: Educational Exchange with Canada Open Door 2005. Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/3390/ folder/48524/Canada_2005.doc 74 Institute of International Education, Leading destinations of Study abroad students 2001-02 and 2002-03 Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=49942 75 Study abroad figures in the Open Doors report reflect credit given by U.S. campuses in the survey year to their students who studied abroad in the academic year just completed, including the summer term, and therefore the report shows study abroad activity for the prior academic year. 76 Institute of International Education, Background: Educational Exchange with Canada Open Door 2005. Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/010000/3390/folder/48524/Canada_2005.doc

41

The following statistics come from the Institute of international Education 77 .

Top 10 sending places of origin and percentage of total international student enrolment (in 2002/2003) 1. SouthKorea 21% 6. India 4% 2. China 16% 7. Mexico 3% 3. Japan 8% 8. Germany 3% 4. UnitedStates 6% 9. Taiwan 2% 5. France 6% 10. Hong Kong 2% The 3 top host destinations for Canadian students are: 1. United States: 21,728 students 2. United Kingdom: 3,174 students 3. Australia: 1,099 students

ii. The United States of America The United States of America is one of the top host countries to international students, along with the UK and Australia. The USA is also the leading exporter of higher education. However, it has suffered a drop of 1.3% of international students studying in the USA from 2003-04. As for North America flows, Canada has increased its number of students studying in the US by 4.2% compared to 2003/04 while Mexico has decreased by 2% during that same period 78 . Only a very small percentage of American students take part in study abroad programs. These programs are usually short period programs, lasting about two months. According to the American Senate, only 1% of American students currently study abroad each year 79 . The following statistics come from the Institute of international Education 80 .
Top 10 sending places of origin and percentage of total international student enrolment (in 03/04): 1. India 13.9% 6. Taiwan 4.6% 2. China 10.8% 7. Mexico 2.3% 3. Rep. of Korea 9.2% 8. Turkey 2% 4. Japan 7.1% 9. Thailand 1.6% 5. Canada 4.7% 10. Indonesia 1.6% The 3 top host destinations for USA students are: 1. United Kingdom: 31,706 students 2. Italy: 18,936 students 3. Spain: 18,865 students .. 6. Mexico: 13,063 students (2003-04) Canada does not figure in the 20 leading host countries.

77 78

Institute of International Education, Online. http://www.atlas.iienetwork.org/?p=48032 Institute of International Education, Open Door 2005 Fast Facts, International Students in the U.S. Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/010000/3390/folder/48524/FastFacts2005.pdf 79 The library of Congress, Thomas, The United States of America, search Year of Study Abroad Online. http://thomas.loc.gov/ 80 Institute of International Education, United States of America Online. http://www.atlas.iienetwork.org/?p=48048

42

iii. Mexico Mexico is not a leading host country for international students; however it is an active sending country. According to ANUIES, the number of Mexican students who went abroad, between 1995 and 1997, was 40% higher than the number of foreign students who came to Mexico 81 . Mexican students usually study abroad for long periods of time, a year or more. However this trend has recently changed and shorter stays have increased in demand. Visa issuances as well as other factors have had an effect on Mexican student mobility toward the USA. In academic year 2004/05, there were 13,063 students from Mexico studying in the United States (down 2% from the previous year). Mexico is the seventhleading place of origin for students to the United States, and is one of only four nonAsian countries among the top ten senders. 82 In return, in 2003, Mexico was the 6th host country to US students 83 .

The 3 top host destinations for Mexican students are 84 : 1. United States: 13,329 students (2003/04) 2. Canada: 3,421( 2001/02) 85 3. United Kingdom: 1,503 students (2003)

b. Three federations North America is composed of three federations. NAFTA has so far been mostly a top bottom negotiation, excluding provincial and state governments. However when approaching higher education issues in North America, such governments need to be integrated in the processes since education jurisdiction is either a shared competence or a state/province jurisdiction.

Clyde W. Barrow, Sylvie Didou-Aupetit and John Mallea, Globalisation, trade liberalisation and higher education in North America (Dordrecht ; Boston ; London : KluwerAcademic Publishers, 2003), 145 82 Institute of International Education, Background: Educational Exchange with Mexico Open Door 2005. Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/010000/3390/folder/48524/Mexico_2005.doc 83 Institute of International Education, Leading destinations of Study abroad students 2001-02 and 2002-03 Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=49942 84 Institute of International Education, Mexico, Online. http://www.atlas.iienetwork.org/?p=48098 85 Nick Clark and Robert Sedgwick, Internal Students: Its a Buyer Market (World Education News and Reviews August 2005) Online. http://www.wes.org/ewenr/PF/05july/pffeature.htm

81

43

Canadas Constitution 86 states that provincial governments have exclusive jurisdiction over all levels of education. The federal government contributes only indirectly to higher education institutions through fiscal transfers to the provinces, research subsidies or grants and student financial aid. The three territories however do not share the same status as the provinces and are directly subjected to federal control; nevertheless the federal government has been known to delegate responsibility regarding education to the territories. Education in the USA is primarily a state and local responsibility. States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrolment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant state and local role. Of an estimated $909 billion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2004-2005, about 90 percent comes from State, local, and private sources. Federal spending is of about 10%. 87 In the USA, the private sector is especially present in higher education. In Mexico, education is a shared jurisdiction between states and the federal government. Both state departments of education and the Secretara de la Educacin Pblica, at the federal level fund and take part in higher education developments. The private sector is also to be considered in certain Mexican higher education institutions. c. The international aspect of academic mobility i. The European example Europe has significantly increased their student mobility through ERASMUS. This program seeks to enhance the quality and reinforce the European dimension of higher education, by encouraging transnational co-operation between universities, boosting European mobility and improving the transparency and full academic recognition of studies and qualifications throughout the Union 88 . In order to achieve its goal and render mobility accessible to most students, Erasmus provides mobility grants. As of now, 2.199 higher education institutions are participating in the program and 1.2 million students have studied abroad, meaning that about 100.000 European students are mobile each year. ERASMUS budget for 2004 was of 187.5 million euros. In light of this great success European countries decided to take a step further in 1999 with the

Donald Fisher, Kjell Rubenson, Robert Clift, Jacy Lee, Madeleine MacIvor and John Meredith, The University of British Columbia, Theresa Shanahan, York University, Glen Jones, OISE/University of Toronto, Claude Trottier and Jean Bernatchez, Universit Laval Canadian Federal Policy and PSE May 2005, Online. www.nyu.edu/iesp/aiheps/downloads/finalreports/May%202005/Canadian%20Federal%20Policy.pdf 87 U.S. Department of Education, The Federal Role in Education Online. http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src=ln 88 Erasmus: Higher Education. Online. http://www.tu-sofia.bg/bul/int_dept/Erasmus-act.htm

86

44

Bologna Declaration 89 . This Bologna Process is the result of the commitment by 45 countries to reform their higher education systems in order to create convergence at the European level. The ultimate aim of the Process is to establish a European Higher Education Area by 2010 in which academic staff and students could move with ease and have quick and fair recognition of their qualifications. In order to achieve these goals, two instruments 90 were established: 1. The Diploma Supplement (DS) 2. The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) Thanks to a collective commitment as well as supportive national policies of member states, which provide additional funding, ERASMUS/SOCRATES is considered one of the most successful European programs in education. ii. EU-USA and EU-Canada Both Canada and the United States have established programs in higher education and vocational educational training with the European Union from 1995 to 2005. Both programs are student centered and meant to foster cultural exchange. These programs are funded in Canada-EUs case by the European Commission and by Human Resources Development Canada. Total funding for a three year project is of 142,000 Euros for the EU partners and 200,000 $ for the Canadian partners. Regarding the USA-EU partnership, the sponsors are the European Commission and the FIPSE. Depending on the activity, funding could range from 25,000 to 160,000 euros for the EU partners and from 25,000 $ to 210,000 $ for US partners. iii. Program Alan 91 : European Union Program of High Level Scholarships for Latin America Mexico is one of the 18 Latin American countries taking part in this program. It aims at cooperating in higher education at the postgraduate level, increasing mobility and access of Latin Americans to Europe. The program offers scholarships to those selected participants. The European Community contribution to each scholarship for students is EUR 1 500 / month and EUR 2 500 / month for professionals. The average duration of this year's award is 22 months (equivalent to an average of two academic years). iv. Canada-Latin America Canada has an increasing interest in being a leader in higher education in Latin America. According to the brief Globalization of higher education and research: A Canadian priority for engagement in the Americas, presented by AUCC, Canada is dedicated to collaborating with emerging markets such as Mexico and Brazil, Chili and Costa Rica in the Free Trade of the Americas context in order to develop and promote quality Higher education and projects. In AUCCs opinion Canada should play a
European National Informations Centers, Bologna Process, The European Area for Higher Education 1999-2010 Online. http://www.enic-naric.net/index.asp?display=Bologna_process 90 European National Informations Centers , Online. http://www.enic-naric.net/instruments.asp 91 Programme Al an, European Union Programme of High Level Scholarships for Latin America, Last update: 10-Mar-2004, Online. http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/alban/faq_en.htm#Q9
89

45

leadership role in endorsing the international dimension of higher education and research through student mobility, research collaboration, and knowledge capacity building 92 . 2. Main Players As mentioned previously, NAFTA has so far been a federal led economic collaboration. In order to inscribe further social and educational initiatives within its framework various players should be considered. The three federal governments as well as the provincial or state governments are crucial participants. Also universities, higher education institutions in general, associations such as the Association of universities and colleges of Canada (AUCC), Asociacin Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educacin (ANUIES), Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Tecnologa (CONACYT), CONAHEC, the Institute of International Education (IIE) and the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) as well as the private sector must be taken into consideration. The trinational Independent Task Force on the Future of North America 93 is a nongovernmental advisory committee. In 2005, the chairs recognized the importance of higher education collaboration within North America and have therefore recommended expanding scholarship and exchange programs, developing Centers for North American Studies in all three countries, and cross-border training programs for school teachers by 2010.

3. Main Issues Academic mobility has been a very popular and growing subject over the last years. Even though North America does not possess an active educational network it has been active in producing projects and conferences on higher education. In the 1990s three main conferences took place: the Wingspread Conference in 1992, the Vancouver Conference in 1993 and the Guadalajara Conference in 1996 (See appendix 1). All three conferences focused on North American Higher Education co-operation. The three conferences gathered high level government officials from the three countries as well as business people, and university faculty members. The Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education 94 (see appendix 1) was created following these conferences. This program, run by all three governments, promotes a student-centered, North American dimension to education and training in a wide range of academic and professional
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Globalization of higher education and research: A Canadian priority for engagement in the Americas, 2003, Online. http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/reports/2003/special_summit_americas_e.pdf 93 Council on Foreign Relations Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010, March 14, 2005, Online. http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7914 94 Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education, Online. http://www.ed.gov/programs/fipsenortham/index.html
92

46

disciplines. Another exchange program the Regional Academic Mobility Program (RAMP) 95 (see appendix 1) also promotes academic and professional mobility in the academic fields of engineering, business and environmental studies. However despite these initiatives, North America still does not have a functional trilateral academic mobility program. In a survey conducted by the Institute of International Education in 1997 respondents, Canadian, Mexican and American universities and institutions, identified the main North American academic mobility issues and obstacles. These ranged from finding sources of financial support, reduction visa restrictions, provisions of tax incentives for corporations involved in trilateral activities to assistance with promotion of linkage opportunities. All of these issues were deemed crucial to the promotion and implementation of trilateral academic mobility 96 . a. Lack of funding Grants although insufficient at a North American level, are available for student mobility. The Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education is a grant competition run cooperatively by the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. However this grant has not been very successful in promoting student mobility because of its restrictive criteria. Indeed the Program has funded a relatively small number of students. Furthermore, in a few provinces in Canada grants are available for students wishing to study abroad. In the United States of America the Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program is to expand opportunities for students at institutions of higher education to study abroad. As for Mexico, public funding for student mobility is very important especially for graduate students. At the undergraduate level private and personal funding is more present than at graduate levels. Nevertheless around 60% of Mexican students abroad finance their education with private funds 97 . b. Private funding Privatization as well as private funding is increasingly popular in North America, especially in the USA. This private funding is seen as the alternative to government spending and the solution to government cut backs. Tax incentives for corporations have frequently been presented as possible solutions to funding problems. In Canada and Mexico however, education is seen as a public good and privatization or private funding is not as popular. In the United States the federal government is seen as a facilitator, a link between state governments, non-governmental organizations, and private sectors, in achieving more student mobility and increasing its funding. Federal
Regional Academic Mobility Program, Online. http://www.iie.org/Template.cfm?Section=Programs_Portal&Template=/Activity/ActivityDisplay.cfm&a ctivityid=16 96 Institute of international Education, Survey and Evaluation of North American Higher Education Cooperation 1997, 1997, Online. http://www.iie.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research_Publications/Archives/linkages.pdf page 3 97 Eduardo Andere, The International Higher Education Market: Mexicos Case, Spring 2004, Online. http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/8/1/56 page 66
95

47

assistance through scholarships and program development grants can be the catalyst for change and for leveraging wider support and participation from higher education, the private sector, and the states. When creating a North American Grant program for student mobility in North America this private sector, federal and federated government dynamic should be taken into account. c. Student and Faculty Interest Student and faculty interest, especially in the US, is lacking. The scarcity of North American programs and centers, post 9/11 developments and the rising attractiveness of Europe have directed students and faculty interest toward Asia, the Middle East and Europe. As we mentioned earlier, Mexican students in the USA has decreased by 2%. On the other hand, European universities as well as Australian and to a lesser extent Canadian universities seem more attractive to foreign students. These countries have been able to lure some of the previous USA market to their own universities. d. Information Diffusion Information on existing programs and sponsorships is very punctual and discipline specific. Accessibility to pertinent mobility information could be improved. The lack of interest of students and faculty can be partly due to this lack of information. The European case has shown us that marketing is crucial to the success of an academic mobility program. e. Tuition waivers The large tuition disparities are an important obstacle when establishing an academic mobility program. USA universities have expressed their concern regarding tuition waivers. Foreign student tuition fees are a major income for USA universities. Nonetheless in some programs such as the North American Mobility in Higher Education program and RAMP, participating students are received in host universities without additional tuition payment. Student mobility would greatly benefit, from these tuition waivers as well as scholarships and financial aid allowing them to face cost of living disparities between the countries. f. Credit transferability Credit transferability and diploma harmonization is very popular in the higher education world. The Europeans through the Bologna Declaration 98 have been working on creating a European area for higher education by 2010. Through CONAHEC and most university agreements, credit transfers are left up to the universities and departments discretion. Once again the RAMP consortium has proven itself original and builds on the experience of the European Community Course Credit Scheme
98

Bologna Declaration, 1999, Online. http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00Main_doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF

48

(ECTS) 99 , a clearinghouse for credit evaluation and recognition, in which participating faculties and departments describe and evaluate their courses in standardized, transferable credit units. In consultation with the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), the RAMP consortium is compiling a body of materials on courses accepted for credit across national borders. 100 A trilateral diploma and training recognition mechanism does exist in North America, although it is effective only in engineering (Mexico, Canada and Texas agreement) and law. g. Focus on marketing strategies Canadian and Mexican universities should focus on and enhance their marketing strategies in order to increase North American students interest, especially USA interest. h. Joint Research and Programs Creating or building on joint research issues and programs are both ways to increase Mexican and Canadian value and increase interest and funding. There are about 3 North American centers, UNAM-CISAN in Mexico City, Carleton University CNAPS in Ottawa Ontario and American University Center for North American Studies (CNAS) in Washington D.C. North American programs, such as the McGill North American Studies Program, are also uncommon. In addition, it would be pertinent to create or to integrate in an existing center, research on North America mobility trends and higher education information in general. i. Visa requirements and restrictions Visa issuance is a main issue. The Bush government, preoccupied by the decrease in foreign student presence in the US has decided to alleviate student visa issuance. We are now approving 97 percent of our visas in just one or two days and we are radically shortening the amount of time that it takes to process the rest, Rice said adding that the number of visas issued in 2005 increased for the first time since the September 11, 2001, attacks. 101 The USA government has expressed its desire to improve its relations in higher education, attracting more foreign students to the USA as well as encourage American students to study abroad. However these efforts are not specifically directed to its North American neighbours.
ECTS - European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, Last update: 05-09-2005, Online. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/ects/index_en.html# 100 Regional Academic Mobility Program, Online www.iie.org/Template.cfm?Section=Programs_Portal&Template=/Activity/ActivityDisplay.cfm&activityi d=16 101 Anthony Kujawa, U.S. Eager To Attract More Foreign Students, Rice Says, Washington File Staff Writer, January 06 2006, Online. http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2006/Jan/06-818145.html
99

49

j. Language The US government, realizing the importance of preparing its future labor force, has announced its dedication to student exchange and language learning. However the focus seems to be on preparing students to encounter Middle Eastern and Asian cultures. Neither Spanish nor French were listed in the target languages. 102 On the other hand, Quebec and Mexico may fear an English language take over in higher education. k. Non-discipline specific trilateral programs Some institutions have expressed their fear of trilateral bureaucracy and the cost it would entail. In that perspective they have argued that linkage works better when it is disciplined focus and controlled by a department. However this formula, such as the RAMP program, is limiting. It does not allow for widespread participation at a North American level, and the information stays very local and punctual. In order to truly stimulate North American academic mobility, it should be extended to all disciplines. So far trilateral initiatives have been built on existing programs such as the Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education 103 , CONAHEC, and Fulbright efforts. It is important to point out however that both, the North American Mobility in Higher Education and RAMP have only had modest success in promoting student mobility. Finally it is important to remember that some North Americans see NAFTA as a purely economic collaboration. Labor issues have always been a touchy subject in North America, and now more than ever with the discussions around the possible construction of the US-Mexican border wall. Greater student mobility and credit transferability might be seen by some as a first step to labor mobility.

4. Course of Action a. Canada-Mexico Partnership Report to Leaders-February 2005 In October 2004, a new bilateral partnership was launched bringing Canada and Mexico closer regarding a number of issues such as trade, good governance, institutional reforms and education. The report, released in September 2005, reaffirms both countries desire to build on existing mechanisms in order to enhance Canada-Mexico relations. The Working group on Human Capital, focused primarily on three key objectives in order to strengthen education and research ties between both countries: increasing student mobility, enhancing academic collaboration and cooperating in
102

International Information Programs, President Introduces Foreign Language Initiative January 5, 2006, Updated: 06 Jan 2006 http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/Jan/06-344515.html 103 Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education, Online http://www.ed.gov/programs/fipsenortham/index.html

50

research. The partnership recognizes the importance of developing North American citizens with international skills, deeper knowledge of the regions realities and an understanding of relevant issues. The CMP presents some of the main objectives to developing such citizens: Student mobility: 1- increase funding; 2- remove obstacles to credit transfers and recognition; 3- enhance the low profile of Canadian and Mexican universities as valued destination. Academic cooperation: 1- develop a tighter relationship; 2- create joint programs and degrees; 3- build knowledge on joint issues. Research Cooperation: 1- develop relations on key issues; 2- expand current cooperation; 3- allow the cooperation to be even more productive. Even though the effort is mainly bilateral, the CMP is working within the Security and Prosperity plan context in order to engage trilateral discussions on higher education, research and training. b. North American Task Force May 2005 The North American task force has recommended the development of a North American approach to regulation, increasing labor mobility and enhancing support for North American education programs in order to establish a North American economic space. The task force denounced the fact that in spite of having historical, cultural, geographic, political and economic ties, North America lacks a vibrant educational exchange network. If educational collaboration were to reflect commercial exchanges, 60,000 Mexican students would be studying in the USA and Canada, and comparable numbers for Canadians and Americans would apply 104 . Concerning higher education a few recommendations were presented: 1- Create a major scholarship fund for undergraduate and graduate students to study in the other North American countries and to learn the regions three languages, 2- develop a network of centers for North American studies, 3- develop sister schools and student exchange programs, 4encourage imaginative ways to build North American connections 105 . It is important to know that these are only recommendations and that so far there is no confirmation that the next Trilateral meeting in Cancun will include higher education. The United States of America is taking action regarding decreasing foreign student presence. To be successful, our government and our universities must forge a new partnership for education exchange, a partnership that rests on new thinking and new action, Rice said at the U.S. University Presidents Summit on International

104

Council on Foreign Relations, Canadian Council of Chief Executives and Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales Building a North American CommunityReport of anIndependent Task Force, 2005 Online. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf page 29 105 Council on Foreign Relations, Canadian Council of Chief Executives and Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales Building a North American CommunityReport of anIndependent Task Force, 2005 Online. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf page 29

51

Education. 106 In order to reach that level of cooperation the US government has identified 4 principles that should guide their efforts to increase educational exchange: 1- Expand exchange efforts such as the Fulbright and Gilman International Scholarship programs; 2- Cultivate new relationships for education exchange with countries playing an increasingly important international role; 3- Make U.S. universities more accessible to talented but underprivileged students and to students of diverse backgrounds; and 4Continue to improve visa policies. 107 None of these principles include or build on North American relations. Part of problem in creating a North American academic mobility program will be first to redirect USAs attention toward North America and second to address student visa issuance to Mexican students. On November 10th 2005, the Senate of the United States of America agreed to the resolution S.RES 308 designating 2006 as the Year of the Study Abroad. In addition to this designation, the resolution 108 encourages secondary schools, higher education institutions, businesses, and government programs to promote and expand study abroad opportunities; and encourages Americans to support initiatives to promote and expand study abroad opportunities as well as observe the Year of Study Abroad with appropriate ceremonies, programs, and other activities. Although this resolution does not focus on expanding student mobility in any particular part of the world it does indicate a commitment of the United State government toward promoting and facilitating student mobility. The Commission on Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, composed of 17 members was created in order to find innovative ways to expand the opportunity for students at institutions of higher education in the United States to study abroad, with special emphasis on studying in developing countries. 109 In November 2005, the Commission submitted a report Global Competence & National Needs, One million Americans Studying Abroad. 110 The commission has called for setting a goal of sending one million students abroad annually by 2016. In order to do so, the Commission has submitted a few recommendations: Students should receive 88% of the program funding through national competition, institutions and consortia; A diversity of students, institutions and destinations within the program should be available; The program should insure and support quality control; Scholarships should range from zero to 5,000$, and should be limited to a year;
106

Anthony Kujawa, U.S. Eager To Attract More Foreign Students, Rice Says, Washington File Staff Writer, January 06 2006, Online. http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2006/Jan/06-818145.html 107 Anthony Kujawa, U.S. Eager To Attract More Foreign Students, Rice Says, Washington File Staff Writer, January 06 2006, Online. http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2006/Jan/06-818145.html 108 Duke University, Global Gateway, U.S. Senate Resolution Designates 2006 as Year of Study Abroad Online. http://www.international.duke.edu/latest/dec-2005/2006_year_of_study_abroad 109 Commission on Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program, 2005. Online http://www.lincolncommission.org/commissioners.html 110 http://www.lincolncommission.org/report.html

52

Federal funding should start at $50 million annually and increase until it reaches $125 million in academic year 2011-2012; Finally, national leadership and support is essential.

53

APPENDIX 1 In the 1990s three main conferences took place: the Wingspread Conference in 1992, the Vancouver Conference in 1993 and the Guadalajara Conference in 1996. All three conferences focused on North American Higher Education co-operation. The three conferences gathered high level government officials from the three countries as well as business people, and university faculty members. Student and faculty mobility was repeatedly been integrated in the conferences objectives. The following is a quick view of each conferences main objectives: Wingspread Statement 111 , Wingspread Conference Center Wisconsin USA, September 12-15 1992: To confer a North American dimension to higher education Favour and foster information exchange regarding mutual interest issues Promote collaboration between higher education institutions (universities, colleges and institutes) Facilitate academic mobility (student and faculty) Reinforce relations between higher education and public and private sectors in domains which are concerned with higher education quality Exploit the possibilities offered by technology. Vancouver Communiqu 112 , Vancouver B-C, September 10-13 1993: Creation of a North American network of Distance Education and Research (NADERN) Business- University collaboration on student mobility Transfer and recognition of professional qualifications Reinforcing teacher-administration relations Creating an electronic information base. Creation of a trilateral exchange, research and training program for students. Creation of a North American business-university association Increase financial aid from organizations and foundations 28-30 April 1996 Guadalajara Mexico 113 To promote collaboration in spite of the decrease in public financing To extend participation to more sectors and disciplines Include university collaboration in North American foreign policies Create excellence university networks To maintain public funding and the governments role as facilitator without bureaucratic structures.
111

Manuel Crespo, Grer la collaboration rgionale dans lenseignement suprieur. Le cas de l'Accord de libre-change nord-amricain (ALENA) Universit de Montral, Canada page28 112 Manuel Crespo, Grer la collaboration rgionale dans lenseignement suprieur. Le cas de l'Accord de libre-change nord-amricain (ALENA) Universit de Montral, Canada page 29 113 Manuel Crespo, Grer la collaboration rgionale dans lenseignement suprieur. Le cas de l'Accord de libre-change nord-amricain (ALENA) Universit de Montral, Canada page 29

54

APPENDIX 2

The Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC) 114 emerged from the Wingspread and Vancouver Conferences. Its main objective is to remove obstacle to North American educational interchange, student mobility and increased collaboration. Its has been very active in organizing conferences on North American Higher Education, the last conference dating from October 2005, in San Juan Puerto Rico. This organization gathers 59 USA members, 76 Mexicans, and 23 Canadians. The Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education is a grant competition run cooperatively by the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The purpose of this competition is to promote a student-centered, North American dimension to education and training in a wide range of academic and professional disciplines. The Program will fund collaborative efforts in the form of consortia consisting of at least two academic institutions from each country. The funding period will be for up to four years. The Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education fosters student exchange within the context of multilateral curricular development. Students benefit from having an added "North American" curriculum and cultural dimension to their studies through combination of trilateral curricular innovation and study abroad. The Program is administrated collectively by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education (FIPSE); Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC); and in Mexico by the Secretariat of Public Education (Direccin de Desarollo Universitario, Secretara de Educacin Pblica - SEP). Conceived in the spirit of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the first grant competition for this Program was held in 1995. The principles of this program are based on recommendations that emerged from the Guadalajara Conference of 1996, the Vancouver Communiqu 1993 and the Wingspread Declaration of 1992, which called for strengthened cooperation in higher education, research, and training among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. 115 The Regional Academic Mobility Program (RAMP) 116 is an international exchange program between Canada, Mexico and the United States for students at participation
114

Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration, Online. http://www.conahec.org/conahec/index.jsp 115 Program for North American Mobility in Higher Education, Online http://www.ed.gov/programs/fipsenortham/index.html 116 Regional Academic Mobility Program, Online http://www.iie.org/Template.cfm?Section=Programs_Portal&Template=/Activity/ActivityDisplay.cfm&a ctivityid=16

55

universities. RAMP aims to foster academic and professional mobility in the academic fields of engineering, business and environmental studies. To be eligible for the program, students must be attending one of the participating universities; 47 are currently involved, of which 18 are Canadian, 16 are Mexican, and 13 are U.S. institutions. Program activities are coordinated by the Institute of International Education (IIE). Students receive credit from their home institutions or courses taken abroad, which can be used toward a degree at their home university. RAMP participation is limited to a maximum of one academic year (one semester is the average length of an exchange program). RAMP was implemented in 1992 under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), with costsharing by IIE and the participating universities. Each participating school is expected to accept incoming students without additional tuition payment, in return for similar treatment of their outgoing students. Beginning in the second year of the program, the Mexican Ministry of Education earmarked $100,000 for the participation of needy Mexican students. The RAMP consortium builds on the experience of the European Community Course Credit Scheme (ECTS) 117 , a clearinghouse for credit evaluation and recognition, in which participating faculties and departments describe and evaluate their courses in standardized, transferable credit units. In consultation with the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), the RAMP consortium is compiling a body of materials on courses accepted for credit across national borders.

117

ECTS - European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, Last update: 05-09-2005, Online. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/ects/index_en.html#

56

Appendix 3

Table 1
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Foreign Students by Host Country

Host Country United States United Kingdom France Germany Russian Federation Japan Australia Canada Belgium Austria Other Total 2000 547,867 211,800 183,214 171,743 78,594 57,476 45,558 38,078 37,557 28,875 389,104 1,789,867

Source: Own estimations based on data from UNESCO, Yearbook, 1999 and 1998, assuming an annual constant rate of growth of 1.014% from 1996 onward. The year 1995,the last year of country by country statistics in the yearbooks showed a yearly growth of 1.014% on average.

Table 2
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 26

Foreign Students by Home Countries

Home Country China Korea Japan Greece Germany Malaysia Turkey Italy India France Mexico 2000 130,366 77,066 69,048 58,079 53,572 53,075 45,006 43,676 43,445 42,053 13,209

Source: Own estimations based on data from UNESCO, Yearbook, 1999 and 1998, assuming an annual constant rate of growth of 1.014% from 1996 onward. The year 1995,the last year of country by country statistics in the yearbooks showed a yearly growth of 1.014% on average.

57

Bibliography
Barrow Clyde W., Didou-Aupetit Sylvie and Mallea John, Globalisation, trade liberalisation and higher education in North America, Dordrecht ; Boston ; London : KluwerAcademic Publishers, 2003 Crespo, Manuel, Grer la collaboration rgionale dans lenseignement suprieur. Le cas de l'Accord de libre-change nord-amricain (ALENA) Universit de Montral, Canada. Internet Documents Andere, Eduardo, The International Higher Education Market: Mexicos Case, Spring 2004, Online. http://jsi.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/8/1/56 Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Globalization of higher education and research: A Canadian priority for engagement in the Americas, 2003, Online. http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/reports/2003/special_summit_americas_e.pdf Centre d'information canadien sur les diplmes internationaux (CICIC), International Mobility in Higher Education: Frameworks, Tools and Trends, Online http://www.cicic.ca/mobility/indexe.stm Commission on the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Fellowship Program http://www.lincolncommission.org/LincolnReport.pdf Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration, Priorities for North American, Higher Education Collaboration, 2002 Calgary, Online. http://conahec.org/conahec/Documents/Priorities2003/Priorities_en.pdf Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration, Priorities Committee Recommends New Directions for North American Collaboration, October 20, 2002, Online. http://conahec.org/conahec/portlets/aboutconahec/PortalNews/priorities_en.html Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration, Project Directors of North American Mobility Consortia Meet in Quebec. October 16, 2004, Online. http://www.conahec.org/conahec/application?origin=hnav_bar.jsp&event=bea.portal.framewor k.internal.refresh&pageid=Home Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration, Bylaws http://www.conahec.org/conahec/Documents/Bylaws/CONAHECBylaws.pdf Council on Foreign Relations, Canadian Council of Chief Executives and Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales Building a North American CommunityReport of anIndependent Task Force, 2005 Online. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

58

Duke University, Global Gateway, U.S. Senate Resolution Designates 2006 as Year of Study Abroad Online. http://www.international.duke.edu/latest/dec2005/2006_year_of_study_abroad Fisher Donald, Rubenson Kjell, Clift Robert, Lee Jacy, MacIvor Madeleine and Meredith John, The University of British Columbia, Shanahan Theresa, York University, Jones Glen, OISE/University of Toronto, Trottier Claude and Bernatchez Jean, Universit Laval; Canadian Federal Policy and PSE May 2005, Online. http://www.nyu.edu/iesp/aiheps/downloads/finalreports/May%202005/Canadian%20Federal %20Policy.pdf International Association of Universities (IAU), the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), Sharing Quality Higher Education Across Borders: A Statement on Behalf of Higher Education Institutions Worldwide, January 2005, Online. http://www.chea.org/pdf/StatementFinal0105.pdf International Information Programs, President Introduces Foreign Language Initiative January 5, 2006, Updated: 06 Jan 2006 http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2006/Jan/06344515.html Institute of International Education, Survey and Evaluation of North American Higher Education Cooperation 1997 April 1997, Online. http://www.iie.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Research_Publications/Archives/linkages.pdf Institute of International Education, Open Door 2005 Fast Facts, International Students in the U.S. Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/010000/3390/folder/48524/FastFacts2005.pdf Institute of International Education, Background: Educational Exchange with Mexico Open Door 2005. Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/010000/3390/folder/48524/Mexico_2005.doc Institute of International Education, http://www.atlas.iienetwork.org/?p=48048 United States of America Online.

Institute of International Education, Leading destinations of Study abroad students 2001-02 and 2002-03 Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=49942 Institute of International Education, Background: Educational Exchange with Canada Open Door 2005. Online. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/3390/ folder/48524/Canada_2005.doc Kujawa, Anthony, Renewing America's Welcome, Student Visas Called "Top Priority", Washington File Staff Writer, 18 January 2006, Online. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfileenglish&y=2006&m=January&x=20060118182341aawajuk0.1215435&t=livefeeds/wflatest.html

59

Kujawa, Anthony, U.S. Eager To Attract More Foreign Students, Rice Says, Washington File Staff Writer, January 06 2006, Online. http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2006/Jan/06818145.html Muche, Franziska and Wchter, Bernd, Opening Up to the Wider World? The External Dimension of the Bologna Process, Institute of International Education, Online. http://www.iienetwork.org/?p=Muche_Waechter National Unions of Students in Europe Internationalisation and Quality Assurances- Towards worldwide accreditation, Prof. Dirk Van Damme, director general of Flemish rectors conference (VLIR), Online. http://www.esib.org/documents/quality.htm Newson, Janice, The Corporate-Linked University: From Social Project to Market Force, Canadian Journal of Communication, vol.23 no 1. 1998, Online. http://www.cjc-online.ca/viewarticle.php?id=449 Pakravan, Payam, The Future Is Not What It Used to Be Re-examining Provincial Postsecondary Funding Mechanisms in Canada, C.D. Howe Institute, No. 227, February 2006, Online. http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/commentary_227.pdf Warde, Ibrahim, Mariage dargent la mode librale-Luniversit amricaine vampirise par les marchands , Le monde diplomatique, Mars 2001, Online http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/imprimer/1839/0d26ae0ea7 Schatzman, Margit A., The Bologna Process: Impact on Transatlantic Exchange from the North American Credential Review and Admission Perspective, Institute of International Education, Online. http://www.iienetwork.org/?p=Schatzman Spinelli, Giancarlo, Mobility and Admission of Graduate Students Across the Atlantic: New Challenges with the Bologna Process, Institute of International Education, Online. http://www.iienetwork.org/?p=Spinelli

Pertinent Web Sites

Asociacin Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educacin ANUIES. www.anuies.mx/ The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999, Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education, Online. http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/00Main_doc/990719BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.PDF The Business-Higher Education Forum, Online. http://www.bhef.com/ Canadian Association for University Continuing Education: a list of pertinent University and Private sector associations in Canada, USA and Mexico. http://cauce-aepuc.ca/en/links.asp Center for InterAmerican and Border Studies (CIBS). http://academics.utep.edu/Default.aspx?alias=academics.utep.edu/cibs

60

Center for North American Studies. http://www.american.edu/internationalaffairs/cnas/ Council for Higher Education Accreditation, Online. http://www.chea.org/default.asp?link=1 Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), Online. http://www.cmec.ca/index.en.html Consortium for North American Higher http://www.conahec.org/conahec/index.jsp Education Collaboration, Online.

European National Informations Centers, Online. http://www.enic-naric.net/instruments.asp ECTS - European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, Last update: 05-09-2005, Online. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/ects/index_en.html# ERASMUS: Higher Education, Online. http://www.tu-sofia.bg/bul/int_dept/Erasmus-act.htm Programme Alan, European Union Programme of High Level Scholarships for Latin America, Last update: 10-Mar-2004, Online. http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/alban/faq_en.htm#Q9 Program for North American Mobility in http://www.ed.gov/programs/fipsenortham/index.html Higher Education, Online

Regional Academic Mobility Program, Online http://www.iie.org/Template.cfm?Section=Programs_Portal&Template=/Activity/ActivityDispl ay.cfm&activityid=16 The USA Federal Role in Education. http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html?src=ln WICHE (Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education) Publications. http://wiche.edu/pubs/ United States of America documents 109th CONGRESS, 1st Session, S. RES. 308, Designating 2006 as the `Year of Study Abroad'. In the Senate of the United States, November 10, 2005. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109dNvUWA 109th CONGRESS, 1st Session, S. 1105, To amend title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding international and foreign language studies. In the Senate of the United States May 23, 2005. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109OjmW67 H.R.509, International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./temp/~c109ltixiL:: The library of Congress, Thomas, The United States of America, search Year of Study Abroad Online. http://thomas.loc.gov/

61

3. LES PRIX
Les efforts que vous dploierez tout au cours de votre prparation au Triumvirat pourraient tre rcompenss lors de loctroi de prix dexcellence la fin de la simulation. Des prix seront en efffet dcerns, dont celui du meilleur projet de rsolution, du meilleur article de journal et du meilleur ngociateur. la demande des dlgus de 2005, il nous fera plaisir de dcerner le prix Triumvirat la personne qui aura incarn le mieux les valeurs promues par le projet de simulation. La pertinence et la qualit des textes soumis, de mme que le respect des chances seront pris en considration dans loctroi de ces prix.

Bonne chance tous et toutes!

Forum sur lIntgration Nord-Amricaine 4519, rue Saint-Denis, Montral (Qubec), Canada H2J 2L4 Tl. : (514) 844-8030 | Tlc. : (514) 844-2030 www.fina-nafi.org | info@fina-nafi.org

62

ANNEXE MODLE DE PROJET DE LOI

Avant-projet de loi Assemble nationale du Qubec (Canada) Premire session, trente-septime lgislature Loi sur le dveloppement durable Dpos par M. Thomas J. Mulcair Ministre de lEnvironnement du Qubec NOTE EXPLICATIVE Cet avant-projet de loi a pour objet d'instaurer un nouveau cadre de gestion au sein de l'Administration afin que l'exercice de ses pouvoirs et de ses responsabilits s'inscrive dans la recherche d'un dveloppement durable. Les mesures prvues par l'avant-projet de loi concourent mieux intgrer la recherche d'un dveloppement durable dans les politiques, les programmes et les actions de l'Administration, ainsi qu' assurer, notamment par l'adoption d'une stratgie de dveloppement durable, la cohrence des actions gouvernementales en ce domaine. Dans le cadre des mesures proposes, le dveloppement durable s'entend du processus continu d'amlioration des conditions d'existence des populations actuelles qui ne compromet pas la capacit des gnrations futures de faire de mme et qui intgre harmonieusement les dimensions environnementale, sociale et conomique du dveloppement. L'avant-projet de loi prvoit la nomination d'un vrificateur gnral adjoint, qui porte le titre de commissaire au dveloppement durable, pour assister le vrificateur gnral dans l'exercice de ses fonctions relatives la vrification en matire de dveloppement durable. L'avant-projet de loi prvoit de plus la cration du Fonds vert affect au financement de mesures ou d'activits que le ministre de l'Environnement peut raliser dans le cadre de ses fonctions. Ce fonds vise notamment appuyer la ralisation de mesures favorisant le dveloppement durable, plus particulirement en regard de son volet environnemental, de mme qu' permettre au ministre, dans le cadre prvu par la loi, d'octroyer un soutien financier, notamment aux municipalits et aux organismes sans but lucratif uvrant dans le domaine de l'environnement.

63

Avant-projet de loi LOI SUR LE DVELOPPEMENT DURABLE LE PARLEMENT DU QUBEC DCRTE CE QUI SUIT: TITRE I GOUVERNANCE FONDE SUR LE DVELOPPEMENT DURABLE CHAPITRE I DISPOSITIONS PRLIMINAIRES 1. La prsente loi a pour objet d'instaurer un nouveau cadre de gestion au sein de l'Administration afin que l'exercice de ses pouvoirs et de ses responsabilits s'inscrive dans la recherche d'un dveloppement durable. Les mesures prvues par la prsente loi concourent plus particulirement mieux intgrer la recherche d'un dveloppement durable, tous les niveaux et dans toutes les sphres d'intervention, dans les politiques, les programmes et les actions de l'Administration, assurer la cohrence des actions gouvernementales en matire de dveloppement, ainsi qu' favoriser l'imputabilit de l'Administration en la matire, notamment par le biais des contrles exercs par le commissaire au dveloppement durable en vertu de la Loi sur le vrificateur gnral (L.R.Q., chapitre V-5.01). 2. Dans la prsente loi, moins que le contexte ne s'y oppose, il y a lieu d'entendre par l'Administration le gouvernement, le Conseil excutif, le Conseil du trsor, les ministres, ainsi que les organismes et les entreprises du gouvernement viss par les articles 4 et 5 de la Loi sur le vrificateur gnral. CHAPITRE II STRATGIE DE DVELOPPEMENT DURABLE ET MESURES PRISES PAR L'ADMINISTRATION EN VUE D'ASSURER LE CARACTRE DURABLE DU DVELOPPEMENT SECTION I PRINCIPES ET STRATGIE DE DVELOPPEMENT DURABLE 3. La mise en uvre du dveloppement durable au sein de l'Administration s'appuie sur la stratgie de dveloppement durable adopte par le gouvernement et se ralise dans le respect des principes prvus par elle et par la prsente section.

64

4. Afin de mieux intgrer la recherche d'un dveloppement durable dans ses diverses sphres d'intervention, l'Administration, dans le cadre de ses diffrentes actions, prend notamment en considration les principes suivants: 1 sant et qualit de vie: les personnes, la protection de leur sant et l'amlioration de leur qualit de vie sont au centre des proccupations relatives au dveloppement durable. Les personnes ont droit une vie saine et productive, en harmonie avec la nature; 2 quit sociale: les actions de dveloppement doivent tre entreprises dans un souci d'quit intra et intergnrationnelle, en tenant compte des besoins des personnes concernes; 5. La stratgie de dveloppement durable du gouvernement expose la vision retenue, les enjeux, les orientations ou les axes d'intervention, ainsi que les objectifs que doit poursuivre l'Administration en matire de dveloppement durable. Elle identifie galement les principes de dveloppement durable qui, en plus de ceux numrs l'article 5, doivent tre pris en compte par l'Administration. SECTION II MISE EN UVRE DE LA STRATGIE ET REDDITION DE COMPTES 6. Afin de centrer ses priorits et de planifier ses actions de manire tendre vers un dveloppement durable en conformit avec la stratgie du gouvernement, chaque ministre, organisme et entreprise compris dans l'Administration identifie et rend publics les objectifs particuliers qu'il entend poursuivre pour contribuer la mise en uvre progressive de la stratgie, ainsi que les activits ou les interventions qu'il prvoit raliser cette fin. TITRE II SECTION I FONDS VERT 7.1. Est institu au ministre de l'Environnement le Fonds vert. Ce fonds est affect au financement de mesures ou d'activits que le ministre peut raliser dans le cadre de ses fonctions. Ce fonds vise, entre autres, appuyer la ralisation de mesures favorisant le dveloppement durable, plus particulirement en regard de son volet environnemental, de mme qu' permettre au ministre, dans le cadre prvu par la loi, d'apporter un soutien financier, notamment aux municipalits et aux organismes sans but lucratif uvrant dans le domaine de l'environnement.

65

7.2. Le gouvernement dtermine la date du dbut des activits de ce fonds, ses actifs et ses passifs ainsi que la nature des cots qui peuvent lui tre imputs. 7.3. Le fonds est constitu des sommes suivantes: 1 les sommes verses par le ministre des Finances en application des articles 15.5, 15.6 et 15.11; 2 les dons, les legs et les autres contributions verss pour aider la ralisation des objets du fonds; 3 les sommes verses par un ministre sur les crdits allous cette fin par le Parlement;

66