Hey, great. Perfect timing. The North American energy sector could use a boost. Moreover, the whole notion of 'trilateral' anything in North America seemed to have died. Was the Winnipeg announcement as sign of things to come? Was trilateralism being put back on life-support? Was it an early example of Prime Minister Trudeau's commitment to renew Canada's relationship with Mexico?
Then, reality sinks in once again.....
To say that I was underwhelmed by the announcement in Winnipeg is an understatement. In fact, it must have been a really slow news day. Hence, if you were hoping that some trilateral cooperation on energy matters would help revive the energy sector's medium-term prospects, you'll be waiting a while longer. If you were hoping (as I was) that there'd be something robust pointing to a genuine renewal of trilateral cooperation and policy coordination, you'll be disappointed (note to Mr. Trudeau: I had something more ambitious in mind).
So, what did they agree to? You can read the press release and judge for yourselves (link here), but as near as I can tell, this MOU commits all three countries to sharing information on a number of important matters including clean energy technology, efficiency measures, and emissions reduction strategies. You mean,.... we aren't doing that already?
As if to add insult to injury, the MOU has this nice little caveat: "This MOU does not impose any legally binding obligations upon the Participants"(7.a). So that point of meeting in Winnipeg was what, exactly? Seems like it was to reaffirm the importance of sharing information most citizens in all three countries probably assumed (expected?) was being shared already.
Now, I might be missing something pretty important here and I know I am complaining-- there is plenty of additional complaining about this topic on this blog (here and here, for example). Moreover, I am sure the staffs of each of the energy ministries worked for some time on the language in the MOU so there would be something (anything) to sign in Winnipeg. None of the three bureaucracies wants their minister's time wasted or scarce tax-dollars used on travel with no tangible deliverables at the end; what's the point of going to Winnipeg in February unless there are deliverables? With all due respect to the staff that worked on the MOU, the tangibles are hard to see.
I also don't want the importance of actually meeting face-to-face to be lost in my complaints. There is something genuinely important about principals getting together, getting familiar with one another, and talking as openly as possible about a range of issues. Hence, I don't have a problem spending tax dollars on a trilateral energy meeting, even if there's no MOU at the end. There are many good reasons for them to have gotten together, with or without deliverables.
I'd just like one of these little agreements to signal a broader "reset" of the entire North American Idea. Looks like I'll be waiting a while longer.
What really bothers me about these kinds of vacuous MOUs is that they reinforce the low bar of ambition around the Big Idea of North America as a cohesive, integrated economic and security space wherein our futures are tied to one another. Making a commitment to share information trilaterally strikes me as something the three governments shouldn't need an MOU to bring about; and certainly not one that is explicitly non-binding.
I suppose I ought to be happy that there was any kind of trilateral meeting. However, any excitement I showed over the low bar set by this MOU would itself be an indictment of the low point we find ourselves in with respect to the North American Idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment