Security Relationship for US and Canada After 9/11

In 1993, when Canada was reviewing its Cold contend security policies and activities, Wesley Wark (284) suggested that it also was appropriate consider which agencies of government should keep responsibilities in the area of security, when he wrote "? why should any of these component parts drop curtain into the hands of tidings services, rather than some other resistant of organization?" Similarly, in 2003, it is appropriate to review the appropriate responsibilities and roles for heterogeneous governmental entities in relation to security, as well as reviewing policies and activities for relevance.

Typically, security and intelligence organizations measure risks to security in ways that reflect their national cultural values. In the contemporary era, legion(predicate) policy makers contend that a changing environment involving and exp hotshotntial growth in information, a changing character of enemies from states to un predictstallised groups, and a capacity to move relatively quickly and freely around the world requires that security and intelligence activities among states be more than highly coordinated than in the past and be little reflective of national values. While there are evident logical reasons to support such an argument, those arguments lose their value if one state, feeling that it is more equal than others, attempts to impose its will on the nature of worldwide cooperation

What is occurrent in the United States took me by surprise. I anticipated that in the aftermath of Sept. 11, there would be an enormous hue and outcry to find out what went wrong. There has been no hue and cry in the United States. No recriminations, nothing even like to what happened after Pearl Harbour in 1941. ? The United States has pull a veil of silence over the issue of intelligence failure.

Gilpin (29) tell that control through the distribution of king has, end-to-end history, been characterized by: (a) hegemony or imperialism, in which a single unchewable state "dominates the lesser states in the system"; (b) bipolarity, in which " dickens powerful states control ?

interactions within and between their regard asive spheres of charm"; and (c) "a balance of power in which three or more states control one another's actions through diplomatic maneuver, break alliances, and open conflict". The contemporary world has devolved into the first form a single powerful state.

Graham, B., M.P., Minister of foreign Affairs. " epitome Note on the Thinkers' Retreat on Security Challenges". capital of Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs (6 September 2002): 1-6. Retrieved from the Internet 2003-04-15 at: http://www. dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cfp-pec/library/retreat_security-en.asp

With respect to the hierarchy of prestige among states, Gilpin (30-31) stated that, ultimately, it "rests on economic and military machine power. Prestige is the reputation for power, and military power in particular. ? prestige refers primarily to the perceptions of other states with respect to a state's capacities and its ability and willingness to exercise its power in international relations ?". In contrast, Keohane (109) contended that power is essential for the construction and livelihood of regimes, and he accorded economic power a primary role in this context. Both Gilpin (31) and Keohane (109) recognized the significance of economic power in the creation and functioning of international r
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.