Résumé
This paper traces the linking of trade and security, a characteristic of US foreign economic policy since 2001. It does so with reference to US economic policy in East Asia. We argue that the US has been unable to resist the temptation to link foreign economic and security policy. While there was evidence of the securitisation of economic globalisation in US policy from day one of the BUSH Administration, it was September 11 that firmed up this trend. Ever since, the BUSH government has been seeing globalisation not simply in neoliberal economic terms, but also through the lenses of the national security agenda of the United States. Economic globalisation has been linked to security policy. This trend is evident in East Asia, where the United States has put an emphasis on Free Trade Agreements with military allies. However, in linking trade and security, the United States have not been very successful: Only two free trade agreements - with Australia and Singapore - are currently implemented in the Asia-Pacific.
Voir le contenu complet de ce document
Extrait
Linking Trade and Security in Asia: Has Washington's Policy Worked?
1 Introduction
The relationship between globalisation, sovereignty and security is now more inextricably linked in the normally competing scholarly literatures of security studies and international political economy than at any time in the recent past. Trends in contemporary world order can only be understood by an examination of the changing nature of the relationship between sovereignty and security under conditions of economic globalisation. The context in which such a sweeping statement can be made is, of course, the world since September 11, which brought into sharp relief some trends that had been developing in the global order in the closing stages of the 20lh century.The key player in the story is, inevitably, the United States, enjoying (if that is the correct expression) a period of unparalleled global predominance. Indeed, the US controls a more substantial share of global power than any country since the emergence of the state system (JERVIS 2003). As JOHN IKENBERRY notes:"The pre-eminence of American power today is unprecedented in modern history. No other great power has enjoyed such formidable advantages in military, economic, technological, cultural or political capabilities. We live in a one superpower world and there is no serious competitor in sight" (!KENBERRY 2002, p.1).We define securitisation as a process in which 'an issue is framed as a security problem' (WAEVER 1995, see also BUZAN 1998).' Specifically in this paper, we will attempt to demonstrate how elements of US foreign economic policy are securitised: Rather than existing in two parallel policy areas, economic policy is subsumed or subjugated within the wider context of the US security agenda.In effect, foreign economic policy is declared in need of having to have a security dimension. securitisation, to recast BUZAN:"... is the move that takes ... [foreign economic policy] ... beyond the established rules of the game and frame the issue as either a special kind of politics or as above politics" (BUZAN 1998, p. 23).Foreign economic policy under BUSH has come...Voir le contenu complet de ce document
Liens sponsorisés
