North America as the new EU?

Could the U.S.-Canadian border and the U.S.-Mexican border disappear, to be replaced by more strict border controls at the edges of the continent? I say it's quite unlikely, at least in the next 20 years or so.

In the Dec. 1 issue of the Economist, an article called "Living with number one" discusses Canada's relationship with the United States. (You can pay to read it online, or you can peruse at your local library, like people did in the days of yore.) The article mentions a Council on Foreign Relations task force that in March recommended "a North American economic and security community by 2010, defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter." You can read more about it on the CFR's website here.

(Note: there are numerous conspiracies about U.S. sovereignty disappearing into the North American night due in part to a certain highway, called "I-69." (Seriously.) Check out the NASCO site for info about the proposed cross-continental, north-to-south highway corridor. It has Lou Dobbs and the like up in arms. It's been discussed on WorldNet Daily, the Snopes.com message board, some website called Human Events, Counterpunch, etc. And a side note to a side note: The NASCO site tells us we're "literally facing a trade tsunami." Literally, eh?)

Everyone loves globalization, and some people blame wars on the very existance of borders, so I'm not surprised by the suggestion of a new vocation for North America. However, there's probably good reason why we haven't heard much of this in the U.S. press. It's not a very realistic proposal.

When considering such a relationship, one is tempted to point to the success of the European Union. While the EU's shortcomings are many, the economically integrated and internally borderless (in many ways) association has been an amazing experiment. The common laws and common currency could not have been imagined in 1944. But this regional organization is unique to Europe for several reasons: relative homogeneity, three or five states of roughly equal power that demand balance, and the horror of two world wars.

Homogeneity: Europe, or at least the Western Europe that started the European Community, is pretty culturally similar. Mexico is not Turkey, but can you imagine how the Minutemen's numbers would swell if we had de jure open borders?

Balance of power: Europe has several similarly powerful states. After the Second World War, Europe feared a German resurgence, and the other states had enough power to get Germany to join the club so it wouldn't attack the club. This also gave Germany protection from England and France. North America is different - the United States runs the show. Canada and Mexico obviously don't have the power to control America like the Europeans intended to do with Germany, although I suspect this might be part of the reason behind support for the CFR plan from many factions outside U.S. borders.

War and peace: There's just too much apathy between North American states. Or, rather, there's not much U.S. interest in changing the relationship - and we're the ones who matter, right? If there had been a few major wars in our region recently, we might be ready to deal.

Perhaps a reasonable explanation is balance of power.

However: I must say that a organization such as the one described could very well exist 50 years from now - the EU has been a long time in the works. But a North American version won't happen in 2010, 2015, 2020...

Update: With Venezuela on route to join Mercosur, and Chavez aides talking about "strategic alliances," I think the better study for EU comparison is in Latin America.