The Border Working Group has campaigned for government funding to provide for the improvement of approaches to the border-crossings, the construction of new commercial facilities and the adoption of technology for the pre-clearance of trucks with passes which can be read electronically. It has also urged that the respective governments increase the number of customs personnel on the border. Problems in relation to drugs and immigrant smuggling on the U.S.-Mexico border have caused the INS to reinforce vigilance in that area by greatly increasing the number of agents, many of whom have been transferred from the U.S.-Canada border.[50]

In conjunction with PNWER and Pace, the Border Working Group also recommended an expansion of the Peace Arch Crossing Entry (PACE) program, which has been in operation for approximately a decade. For a $25 fee, frequent cross-border auto travelers are permitted to pass through the border on a pre-approved basis on certain lanes specified for that purpose. To date, there is only one PACE lane in operation in the B.C.-Washington border region, at the White Rock-Blaine border crossing. Nevertheless, the local International Mobility and Trade Corridors project received in mid-1999 a $200,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Transport to promote the PACE program and encourage its permanent establishment. As a result of the Shared Border accord, Revenue Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada developed the Canpass Highway Program which similarly allowed frequent crossers to enter the country without being detained by customs inspectors. The Canpass program was later extended to include other Canadian ports of entry on the B.C.-Washington border.[51] The Border Working Group, Pace and PNWER also opposed the proposed U.S. Border Crossing Fee, which was not implemented. They also worked towards the repeal of Section 110 of the new U.S. immigration law. Although Section 110 has not yet been repealed, its implementation has been delayed for at least two years (until March 2001).[52]

A third major thrust of the Cascadia Task Force concerns tourism. PNWER and Pace are also very active in this area. Tourism is B.C.’s third major industry (first in terms of growth and employment), while in the State of Washington it ranks fourth in importance.[53] One key promotional campaign involves the Two-nation Vacation Package or Cross Border Circle Tours. One of these involves a trip of two to three days duration which includes visits to Seattle, Vancouver and Victoria. Other possibilities of this type of binational vacation package, such as the International Selkirk Loop in the eastern part of the region, are also being explored. Other promotional campaigns involve regional rail tours, certain specialized tours (such as visits to Indian tribal groups) and an inter-modal transportation pass. The Cascadia Task Force is also attempting to convince the U.S. federal government of the need to repeal or modify the antiquated Passenger Service Act of 1886, which allows only ships built in the U.S. or sailing under a U.S. flag to carry passengers between two U.S. ports. A modification in existing maritime legislation would permit Seattle to share in the profitable Alaska cruise trade.[54]

CONCLUSIONS

Cascadia has come to signify for many inhabitants of the northwest a sense of belonging to a much greater transborder region and of having common interests. Although much of the initiative and impetus behind the idea of Cascadia has originated in the State of Washington and is based or centered in Seattle, the sense of regionalism and regional identity is also strongly felt in B.C. and other regions on both sides of the border.

Both space and distance are conditioning factors in the case of the Cascadia region. The objectives of the principal Cascadia transborder organizations-PNWER, Pace, and the Cascadia Corridor group- consist in promoting integration and cooperation among the regions and major urban centers of the several political entities of the Northwest, rather than merely cross-border interaction.

The international border is not the principal focus for the Cascadia region. It is, however, seen to be a principal obstacle to the realization of the non-governmental organizations’ respective aims. As a result, much of the work of these organizations is directed towards facilitating the movement of people and goods across the border. The border and the need to overcome border barriers is an important issue area for transborder organizations in the Cascadia region. One important result of such work is the installation of the PACE and Canpass systems for frequent border crossers.

Transportation ranks as the highest in priorities for the Cascadia region, due to need to conquer distance as well as the conviction on the part of the Cascadia Corridor planners that it holds the key to solving many of the problems and difficulties in achieving integration in the Northwest. Promoting tourism, especially on a transborder, interregional level, is also a high priority for the Cascadia organizations.

A key question concerning the role of transborder institutions in the region deals with that concerning their ability to bring about changes that will result in a substantial increase in cross-border interaction and regional integration.

The formation of a transbroder council having authoritative power has been as yet unattainable in the Cascadia region. The Cascadia Project had as one of its objectives the creation of a Cascadia Corridor Commission, but it failed due to opposition from B.C.’s NDP government. Cascadia proponents have repeatedly argued the need for such a body, but to date it has not yet come into being.

In reality, the tactics for change employed by transborder organizations in the region are two-fold in nature. One approach, that might be called a kind of collaborative alliance, consists in identifying certain common objectives and then working through existing institutions and mechanisms on both sides of the border in order to fulfill them. As noted, some of the organizations described have a combination of political and private sector components in some form. This characteristic varies in accordance with the organization in question. In the case of PNWER, the governors, premiers and four members from each of the legislatures of the respective states and provinces in the Northwest form part of its Delegate and Executive Councils. The various private sector organizations involved in the Cascadia Project, such as PNWER, Pace and the Cascadia Task Force, have a certain chance for success in the use of this approach than other transborder organizations lacking such political clout or connections. Not all transborder organizations in Cascadia have this advantage. Those less likely to be successful in this endeavor are the many Cascadia environmental organizations which have not been discussed in this paper. These are less likely to obtain political support than those organizations which have trade and commerce as their principal areas of interest.

The second approach consists in making people aware of the opportunities and benefits of promoting cross-border interaction. This is more vertical in nature in that it involves working from a grass-roots level on upward and which hopefully will result in inducing government authorities to adopt the appropriate measures. This role of educating the public, or informing it concerning certain issues and having them debated in forums for that purpose, is high on the priorities for transborder NGOS in the Cascadia region and is considered to be every bit as important as the more concrete achievements.

NOTES

[1] Ohmae, 1993: 78-81; Elkins, 1995: 79-121; Ohmae, 1995: 79-100.
[2] Evenden and Turbeville, 1992: 52-53; Kresl, 1992: 65; Artibise, 1997: 5-6.
[3] MacQueen, 1997: B-1; Artibise, 1997: 15.
[4] Gibbins, 1989: 2.
[5] “Waves of Sewage”, 1991: 1-14; Evenden and Turbeville, 1992: 54-55.
[6] Laster, 2000; Pynn, 1998: B-4; Gibbins, 1989: 7.
[7] McCloskey, 1990: 3.
[8] Schell and Hamer, 1993: 11-12; Henkel, 1993: 113.
[9] Laster, 2000; Alper, 1996: 2.
[10] Alper, 1996: 4.
[11] Alper, 1996: 2-4; Artibise, 1997: 2-4.
[12] Sage, 1946: 349-367; Graebner 1955: 22-42, 103-107, 123-149; Galbraith, 1997: 219-250.
[13] Schell and Hamer, 1995: 143-145; Artibise, 1997: 11; Simpson; Evenden and Turbeville, 1992: 53. 
[14] Alper, 1996: 4.
[15] Evenden and Turbeville, 1992: 53.
[16] Schell and Hamer, 1995: 8-10. See also Alper, 1996: 4.
[17] Artibise, 1997: 12. For an interesting and provocative study which attempts to define the many different ways in which U.S. and Canadian societies differ, see Lipset, 1990. See also DePalma, 1998: B-1; and DePalma, 1999: E-6.
[18] Alper, 1996: 2-4; Schell and Hamer, 1995: 7-8.
[19] Chapman, Pascall y Agnew, 1999.
[20] Johansen and Gates, 1957: 147-149, 246-267, 381-399; MacDonald, 1987: 8-43.
[21] PNWER, 1998; Bluechel, 1993: 27-29.
[22] Pacific North West Economic Region, Seattle, Wash., “Information Manual,” 2nd. Ed. (Seattle, Wash.: PNWER, 1998); Pacific North West Economic Region “Governance Structure”, (Seattle, Wash.: PNWER, N.D.); PNWER Leadership, Pacific Northwest Economic Region, Seattle, Wash.
[23] Pacific North West Economic Region, “Working Groups”, n.d.; PNWER Working Groups; Clean Water Center; Interview with Roger Bull, 1998; Bluechel, 1993: 27-29.
[24] PNWER Profile; PNWER Background and History, Pacific Northwest Economic Region, Seattle, Wash.
[25] For examples of such views, see Artibise, 1997: 13-14.
[26] E-mail and telephone interviews with Peter Fraser, 2000; Promotional Pamphlet, Pacific Corridor Enterprise Council (PACE).
[27] Hatfield, 1994: B-5; Pivo and Rose: 1-2; Edgington and Goldberg: 1-8; Agnew, 1998.
[28] “What Is the Cascadia Project?” and “Mission Statement”; Agnew, Pascall and Chapman, 1999: 9.
[29] Hamer and Chapman, 1993: 28.
[30] Chapman, 1997: A-12.
[31] Chapman, 1997: A-12; Yaffe, 1999: A-3; Alper, 1996: 9. Chapman also suggested the possibility of creating a Cascadia Corridor Development Corporation, which could be modeled after the St. Lawrence Seaway. Agnew, Pascall and Chapman, 1999: 6, 39.
[32] Agnew, 1998: 1. See also Anderson, 1997.
[33] Agnew, Pascall and Chapman, 1999: 4; Chapman, Pascall and Agnew, 1999.
[34] Agnew, 1998; Trahane, 1999.
[35] Agnew, Pascall and Chapman, 1999: 9-21.
[36] Pacific Northwest Economic Region, Seattle, Wash., “PNWER-Cascadia Inland Trade Corridors Project,” (Seattle, Wash.: PNWER, n.d.); Agnew, Pascall and Chapman, 1999: 22-23.
[37] Schiller, Agnew and Howell, 1997.
[38] Miller, 1994: A-15; “Cascadia Project Organizes Support for More Trains on Cascadia’s Mainstreet”, 1999: 4.
[39] Chapman, Pascall and Agnew, 1999.
[40] Agnew, Pascall and Chapman, 1999: 38-41; Nagle, 1999: A-14.
[41] Agnew, Pascall and Chapman, 1999: 18-22, 26-28.
[42] E-mail interview with Peter Fraser, 2000.
[43] Agnew, 1998.
[44] Agnew, 1998; Daniels, 1999: F-1.
[45] Bramham, 1997: I-21.
[46] For a succinct account of Canadian-U.S. foreign policy differences in regards to Cuba, see Falcoff, 1998: 43-49.
[47] “Americans Cautioned on Risk of Terrorism: Canada Border Arrest Stirs Bid for Vigilance”, 1999: A-1, A-15; “Algerian Arrested at Border Site”, 1999: A-11.
[48] Agnew, Pascall and Chapman, 1999: 18-21.
[49] Artibise, 1997: 18-19.
[50] Artibise, 1997: 19.
[51] An airport CANPASS system was also established at Vancouver International Airport, as well as a CANPASS Marine clearance program. In July 1996, an improved system, the INS Passenger Accelerated Service (INPASS), became functional. Communication concerning CANPASS Highway Program sent to author from Theodore H. Cohn, August 2, 1999; Olson, 1999: 1-2; Aarsteinsen, 1998: H-1, 10; Agnew, Pascall and Chapman, 1999: 16.
[52] It was also urged that 75 percent of the PACE fees be used locally. “PNWER Accomplishments”; “U.S.-Canada Border Issues: Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act”, Pacific Northwest Economic Region. From 1997-1998 however, a slowdown in progress in the implementation of the Shared Border accord caused the Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance to issue a call to continue with the successful progress achieved during the first two years of the program. Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance, “The Canada-United States Accord on Our Shared Border- A Call to Action for 1999”, n.d.
[53] Hamer and Chapman, 1993: 32-34.
[54] Agnew and Robson; “History of Accomplishments”: 4; Buck and Solomon, 1996; Hamer and Chapman, 1993: 39-40.

REFERENCES

Aarsteinsen, Barbara. 1998. “U.S. Hastens Immigration Clearance at Airport”, The Vancouver Sun, September 18.

Agnew, Bruce. 1998a. “Connecting Cascadia’s Communities”, The Seattle Times, July 14, in http://archives.seattletimes.com.

_______, 1998b “Reflections at the Blaine Border Crossing”, Progress: A Publication of the Bellingham/Whatcom Chamber of Commerce (September).

_______, Glenn Pascall and Bruce Chapman. 1999, Connecting the Gateways and Trade Corridors. Phase 1 Report: An Initiative of the Cascadia Project at Discovery Institute, Seattle, Washington (Seattle, Wash.: Discovery Institute).

_______ and Marian Robson. N.d. “Moving Beyond the Rhetoric of Cooperation in Cascadia” (Seattle, Wash.: Discovery Institute/Cascadia Institute/International Centre for Sustainable Cities).

“Algerian Arrested at Border Site”. 1999. The San Diego Union-Tribune, December 22.

Alper, Donald K. 1996. “The Idea of Cascadia: Emergent Transborder Regionalisms in the Pacific Northwest-Western Canada”, Journal of Borderlands Studies, XI:2 (Fall).

“Americans Cautioned on Risk of Terrorism: Canada Border Arrest Stirs Bid for Vigilance”. 1999. The San Diego Union-Tribune, December 20.

Anderson, Ross. 1997. “A Seamless Network Urged for Northwest”, The Seattle Times, December 19, http://archives.seattletimes.com.

Artibise, Alan F.J. 1997.”Cascadian Adventures: Shared Visions, Strategic Alliances, and Ingrained Barriers in a Transborder Region” (Unpublished paper, April).

Bluechel, Alan. 1993. “The Pacific Northwest Economic Region: A Multi-state, Multi-province Regional Approach to Economic Development”, Economic Development Review 11 (Winter).

Bramham, Daphne. 1997. “U.S. Officials Cause Border Trip-ups”, The Vancouver Sun, December 6.

Buck , Richard and Christopher Solomon. 1996. “Pier Pressures”, The Seattle Times, September 29, http://archives.seattletimes.com.

Bull, Roger, ex-Executive Director of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER), Seattle, Wash. 1998. Interview conducted by Prof. Theodore H. Cohn, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B. C., January 29.

Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance, n.d. “The Canada-United States Accord on Our Shared Border – A Call to Action for 1999”, (New York: Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance).

“Cascadia Project Organizes Support for More Trains on Cascadia’s Mainstreet”. 1999. Cascadian 2, no. 1 (Summer).

Chapman, Bruce. 1997. “We’ve Made Little Progress Between Pig War and Fish War”,  The San Diego Post-Intelligencer, July 25.

_______, Glenn Pascall and Bruce Agnew. 1999. “Looking Ahead 50 Years To Solve Washington’s Transit Problems”, The Seattle Times, July 25, in http://archives.seattletimes.com.

Daniels, Alan. 1999 “Seamless Canada-U.S. Border Crossing Urged”, The Vancouver Sun, February 19.

DePalma, Anthony. 1998. “Nine Nations See U.S. as a Threat to Their Cultures”, The New York Times, July 1.

_______, 1999 “Culture Wars: Trying to Stay Canadian Despite Giant to the South”, The San Diego Union-Tribune August 8.

Discovery Institute. ”What Is the Cascadia Project?” and “Mission Statement”, Seattle, Wash. In http://www.discovery.org

Edgington, David W. and Michael A. Goldberg, “Vancouver: Canada’s Gateway to the Rim”, in Blakerly and Stimson, New Cities of the Pacific Rim (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development).

Elkins, David J. 1995. Beyond Sovereignty: Territory and Political Economy in the Twenty-First Century (Toronto: University of Toronto Press)

Evenden, Leonard J. and Daniel E. Turbeville III. 1992. “The Pacific Coast Borderland and Frontier”, in Donald G. Janelle (ed.), Geographical Snapshots of North America (New York: The Guildford Press)

Falcoff, Mark. 1998. “Northern Fidelity”, The American Spectator (October).

Fraser, Peter, President of Pacific Corridor Enterprise Council, 2000. (E-mail and telephone interviews (March 15, 17, 23).

Galbraith, John S. 1977. The Hudson’s Bay Company as an Imperial Factor, 1821-1869 (New York: Octagon Books).

Gibbins, Roger. 1989. Canada As a Borderlands Society (Orono, Me.: The Canadian-American Center, university of Maine).

Graebner, Norman A. 1955. Empire on the Pacific: A Study in American Continental Expansion (New York: The Ronald Press Company).

Hamer, John and Bruce Chapman. 1993. “International Seattle: Creating a Globally Competitive Community” (Seattle: Disco very Institute).

Hatfield, Mark O. 1994. “Fulfilling the Promise of the Cascadia Region”, The Seattle Times, February 22.

Henkel, William B. 1993. “Cascadia: A State of (Various) Minds”, Chicago Review XXXIX, nos. 3-4 (Summer-Autumn).

“History of Accomplishments”, Pacific Northwest Economic Region.

Johansen, Dorothy O. and Charles M. Gates. 1957. Empire of the Columbia (New York: Harper & Brothers).

Kresl, Peter Karl. 1992 The Urban Economy and Regional Trade Liberalization (New York: Praeger).

Laster, Molly, Consultant. 2000. Discovery Institute, Seattle, Wash., Interview conducted by the author (March 20).

Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1990. Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada (New York: Routledge).

MacDonald, Norbert. 1987. Distant Neighbours: A Comparative History of Seattle and Vancouver (Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press).

MacQueen, Ken. 1997. “Both Sides of the Border”, The Vancouver Sun, October 25.

McCloskey, David. 1990. “Cascadia: A Great Green Land on the Northeast Pacific Rim”, in http://tnews.com:80/text/mccloskey.html.CascadiaPlanet

Miller, John. 1994 “Riding the Cascadia Express”, The Vancouver Sun, August 18.

Nagle, Patrick. 1999. “Baseball Season in Seattle Sets off Cascadia Dreams”, The Vancouver Sun, August 3.

Ohmae, Kenichi. 1995. The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economics  (New York: The Free Press).

_______, 1993. “The Rise of the Region State”, Foreign Affairs LXXII, no. 2 (Spring).

Olson, Meg. 1999. “INS Boss Says No Changes Planned for PACE”, The Northern Light, Blaine, Wash., July 15.

Pace, Promotional pamphlet, Pacific Corridor Enterprise Council.

Pivo, Gary and David C. Rose, “Seattle: Coping with Success”, in Edward J. Blakely and Robert J. Stimson (eds.), New Cities of the Pacific Rim (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California at Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development).

PNWER, “PNWER-Cascadia Inland Trade Corridors Project”, (Seattle, Wash.: PNWER).

_______, Background and History, Pacific Northwest Economic Region, Seattle, Wash. http://www.power.org

_______, Leadership, Pacific Northwest Economic Region, Seattle, Wash. http://www.pnwer.org

_______, Profile; PNWER Background and History, Pacific Northwest Economic Region, Seattle, Wash. http://www.pnwer.com.

_______, Working Groups, Clean Water Center http://www.pnwer.org.

_______, “Governance Structure” (Seattle, Wash.: PNWER).

_______, 1998. “Information Manual”, 2nd. Ed. (Seattle, Wash.: PNWER).

_______, “Working Groups” (Seattle, Wash.: PNWER).

Pynn, Larry. 1998. “Border-crossing Canucks Score Tax Savings”, The Vancouver Sun, February 23.

Quigley, Eileen V. 1990. “Cascadia”, The New Pacific, no. 2 (Winter-Spring).

Sage, Walter No. 1946. “The Oregon Treaty of 1846”, The Canadian Historical Review XXVII no. 4 (December).

Schell, Paul and John Hamer. 1993. “Cascadia: The North Pacific West.” Paper prepared for the North American Institute, April 3.

_______, 1995. “Cascadia: The New Binationalism of Western Canada and the U.S. Pacific Northwest”, in Robert L. Earle and John D. Wirth (eds.), Identities in North America: The Search for Community (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press).

Schiller, Preston, Bruce Agnew and Douglas Howell. 1997. “Why Settle for WEAKTEA? ISTEA Works”, The Seattle Times, June 27, in http://archives.seattletimes.com.

Simpson, David. “The Bioregional Basis of Forest Certification: Why Cascadia?” http://www.uidaho.edu/e-journal/ecoforestry/ijev11n4-cas.html.

Trahane, Mark. 1999, “Cascadia: Borderless Solutions”, The Seattle Times, May 2, http://archives.seattletimes.com.
“U.S.-Canada Border Issues: Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act”, Pacific Northwest Economic Region http://www.pnwer.org.

“Waves of Sewage and Auto Traffic Sweep Down on U.S. from Canada”. 1991. The New York Times, May 19.

Yaffe, Barbara. 1999 “Cascadia is Sometimes a Great Notion, but It Falters on Practical Grounds”, The Vancouver Sun, August 16.