Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:10:03.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Securitization of the US–Canada Border in American Political Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2012

Mark B. Salter  and
Geneviève Piché
Mark B. Salter*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Geneviève Piché*
Affiliation:
Carleton University
*
Mark B. Salter, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Ave. East, Ottawa ON, K1N 6N5, Email: [email protected]
Geneviève Piché, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa ON, K1S 5B6, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. In this paper, the authors analyze the empirical process of securitization of the US–Canada border and then reflect on the model proposed by the Copenhagen School. We argue that securitization theory oversimplifies the political process of securitizing moves and audience acceptance. Rather than attributing securitization to a singular speaker addressing a specific audience, we present overlapping and ongoing language security games performed by varying relevant actors during the key period between the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) in December 2004 and the signing of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) in June 2005, showing how multiple speakers participate in the continuing construction of a context in which this issue is increasingly treated as a matter of security. We also explore the language adopted by participants in the field, focusing on an expert panel convened by the Homeland Security Institute. We conclude that in the securitization of the US–Canada border there are inconsistencies between truth and discourse, as well as significant distinctions between official and bureaucratic discourses, further emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive model of securitization.

Résumé. Dans cet article, les auteurs font l'analyse du processus empirique de la sécurisation de la frontière Canado-Américaine à travers la réflexion sur le modèle proposé par l'École de Copenhague. Nous soutenons que cette théorie de sécurisation simplifie trop le processus politique de son initiation et de l'acceptation de l'auditeur. Au lieu d'attribuer la sécurisation à un orateur, s'adressant à un public particulier, nous présentons les jeux de langage continuels effectués par plusieurs acteurs pendant la période suivant la Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) en décembre 2004, jusqu'à l'approbation de la Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) en juin 2005. Nous maintenons que plusieurs orateurs participent dans la construction continuelle du contexte dans lequel l'affaire est de plus en plus comprise dans le cadre de sécurité. Nous explorons aussi le langage employé par les participants dans le champ, observant surtout un groupe d'experts convoqué au Homeland Security Institute. Nous concluons que dans le cas de la sécurisation de la frontière Canado-Américaine il existe des incohérences entre le discours et le réel, ainsi que des distinctions significatives entre les discours officiels et bureaucratiques, mettant l'accent sur l'importance d'un modèle compréhensif de sécurisation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 929 - 951
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, Donald E. 2006. A Capitol Idea: Think tanks and US Foreign Policy Montreal-Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreas, Peter. 2005. “The Mexicanization of the US–Canada Border: Asymmetric Interdependence in a New Security Context.” International Journal 60 (2): 449–64.Google Scholar
Balzacq, Theirry. 2005. “The Three Faces of Securitization: Political agency, audience, and context.” European Journal of International Relations 11 (2): 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balzacq, Thierry. 2008. “The Policy Tools of Securitization: Information Exchange, EU Foreign and Interior Policies.” Journal of Common Market Studies 46 (1): 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balzacq, Thierry. 2011. “Enquiries into methods: a new framework for securitization analysis.” In Securitization Theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve, ed. Thierry Balzacq, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Balzacq, Thierry and Léonard, Sarah, eds. 2011. “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Of Method and Progress in Securitization Studies.” In On Securitization: The Design and Evolution of Security Problems, ed. Thierry Balzacq, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bigo, Didier. 2006. “Globalized (in)Security: The field and the ban-opticon.” In Terror, Insecurity, Liberty: Illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, ed. Bigo, D. and Tsoukala, A.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bigo, Didier and Guild, Elspeth. 2005. “Policing at a Distance: Schengen Visa Policies.” In Controlling Frontiers: Free Movement into and within Europe, ed. Bigo, D. and Guild, E.. London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry. 1991. People, States and Fear: National Security Problem in International Relations. 2nd edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, Wæver, Ole and de Wilde, Jaap. 1997. Security: A new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing political discourse: theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embassy of the United States of America. 1995. A Canada–United States of America Accord on Our Shared Border. February. Ottawa ON.Google Scholar
Government of Canada. 2000. Canada–United States Accord on Our Shared Border: Update 2000. Ottawa ON.Google Scholar
Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huysmans, Jef. 2006. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitchen, Veronica. 2004. “Smarter co-operation in Canada–US relations?” International Journal 53 (3): 693–710.Google Scholar
Kitchen, Veronica and Sasikumar, Karthika. 2009. “Canada (En)Counters Terrorism: US–Canada Relations and Counter-terrorism Policy.” Terrorism and Political Violence 21 (1): 155–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, Benjamin J. 2008. Governing through Risk at the Canada–US Border: Liberty, Security, Technology. Working paper no. 2, Border Policy Research Institute. Bellingham WA: Western Washington University.Google Scholar
Neal, Andrew W. 2009. “Securitization and Risk at the EU Border: The origins of FRONTEX.” Journal of Common Market Studies 47 (2): 333–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellerin, Hélène. 2005. “Borders, migration and economic integration: Towards a new political economy of borders.” In Global Surveillance and Policing: Borders, Security, Identity, ed. Zureik, Elia and Salter, Mark B.. Collumpton UK and Portland OR: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Roe, Paul. 2008. “Actors, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the UK's Decision to Invade Iraq.” Security Dialogue 39 (6): 615–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, Mark B. 2004. “Passports, Mobility, and Security: How smart can the border be?” International Studies Perspective 5 (1): 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, Mark B. 2007. “Canadian post-9/11 border policy and spillover securitization: smart, safe, sovereign?” In Critical Policy Studies: Contemporary Canadian Approaches, ed. Orsini, Michael and Smith, Miriam. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Salter, Mark B. 2008. “Securitization and Desecuritization: A dramaturgical analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.” Journal of International Relations and Development 11 (4): 321–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, Mark B. 2011. “When Securitization Fails: The hard case of counter-terrorism programs.” In Securitization Theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve, ed. Thierry Balzacq, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scherrer, Amandine. 2010. “Norms and Expertise in the Global Fight against Transnational Organized Crime and Terrorism.” In Canada–EU Security Relations: Fields, Practices and Policies, ed. B, Mark. Salter, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stritzel, Holger. 2007. “Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond.” European Journal of International Relations 13 (3): 357–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, Reg. 2004–2005. “Securing the ‘Ontario-Vermont border’: Myths and Realities in Post-9/11 Canadian-American Security Relations.” International Journal LX (1): 53–70.Google Scholar