is cross border disaster cooperation possible today?
One of my big fears is how the current federal administration is changing the relationship between the United States and Canada. In treating Canada as the enemy or at least something to be desired as the 51st state has alienated much of the population of Canada. Previous work that has been done to provide for cross border cooperation during a disaster is likely in jeopardy going forward. People are people and not immune to hard feelings when they are treated less than equals or what they thought to be friends.
The other thing I’ll point out is that in international relations the US State Department, no matter who they are, want to control the show when it comes to any international activities. I don’t see them “rushing in” to help coordinate and facilitate the cross-border movement of people and supplies during a multi-national disaster, like the earthquake risks we share with the Canadians here in the Pacific Northwest.
The column below was written by Jim Mullen. We have known one another since about 1993. We have appeared many times jointly or with one or the other of us in the audience when the other was speaking. Jim has been fond of saying something like this, “Eric Holdeman and I don’t agree on everything, but I think we agree on this…” Well Jim, let me say this about what you wrote below, “Jim and I don’t agree on everything, but I do agree with him on what he wrote below.”
People believe that we are doing everything possible to promote disaster resilience for our communities and they expect that those actions extend to working with our neighbors, wherever they are to promote cooperation and to come to one another’s aid. It is our duty to act on that belief and to make it operational.
MUTUAL AID BETWEEN US AND CANADA: SOMETHING TO WATCH
by Jim Mullen
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ONCE REMOVED
Early in my tenure as state Director of Emergency Management, one of my staff, Jeff Parsons, recommended that an “agreement in principle” to facilitate mutual aid across our international border should be formalized. Terms would be modeled after the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, a mutual aid agreement among the 50 US states and territories. The complexity of transforming an agreement in principle into acceptable legal language to satisfy very different legal and jurisdictional concerns seemed daunting, but I agreed. We (Washington State’s Emergency Management Division) initiated negotiations for a mutual aid compact between the FEMA Region 10 states (Washington, Alaska, Oregon and Idaho) as well as British Columbia and Yukon Territory.
After several years the state, provincial and territorial legal teams had (finally!) achieved consensus on every comma and apostrophe in a Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement (PNEMA). At the formal signing ceremony (between Washington State and British Columbia) I was asked by Governor Gregoire to brief the Premier of British Columbia on the basic elements of the agreement to provide disaster assistance across international boundaries. When I finished, BC Premier Campbell responded “so, Director, you are recommending that we agree to something every intelligent person on both sides of the border would have thought has existed for years?” That summed it up quite nicely.
In 2012, in the final exercise in my tenure as EMD director, “Operation Evergreen” tested an earthquake scenario where Washington State requested cross-border assistance from British Columbia (also Alaska) utilizing PNEMA. It was the first such exercise in the nation, to my knowledge. It was successful. Since that first exercise, PNEMA has been activated by Washington State in real-life situations. A few years later as a private consultant I had the honor of assisting the province of Manitoba and the state of North Dakota as the Central States and Provinces worked on a similar compact. Eastern Seaboard States and provinces likewise have concluded cross-border arrangements.
In discussions for the Central States ‘ agreement, a question was raised about the political sensitivity of relying on another nation’s personnel to respond to a major disaster. I argued (channeling BC’s Premier) that reflexive nationalism would fade in favor of humanity and common sense.
PNEMA come to mind as the US has initiated a tense, and totally counterproductive dispute, ostensibly over trade policy, but also challenging Canada’s national sovereignty. While unrelated to emergency management (at least for now!), in such a chaotic political environment might the US State Department propound a theory that federal authority supersedes a state’s right to seek or provide aid across our northern border, without conditions? Hopefully, not. Thus far, it appears that all is well with PNEMA, but we should remain watchful. Politics laced with false bravado can drive common sense into hiding.
