The securitisation of avian influenza: international discourses and domestic politics in Asia

Abstract

Infectious disease outbreaks primarily affect communities of individuals with little reference to the political borders which contain them; yet, the state is still the primary provider of public health capacity. This duality has profound effects for the way disease is framed as a security issue, and how international organisations, such as the World Health Organization, assist affected countries. The article seeks to explore the role that domestic political relationships play in mediating the treatment of diseases as security issues. Drawing upon an analysis of the securitisation of avian influenza in Vietnam and Indonesia, the article discusses the effect that legitimacy, competing referents and audiences have on the external and internal policy reactions of states to infectious diseases, specifically in their interpretation of disease as a security threat. In doing so, we extend upon existing debates on the Copenhagen School's securitisation framework, particularly on the impact of domestic political structures on securitisation processes in non-Western, non-democratic and transitional states.

Avian influenza, ‘viral sovereignty’, and the politics of health security in Indonesia

“…Note, for example, Siti's (2008: 55) Yet, while observers like Elbe have tended to focus on the international bargaining power provided by the securitisation of H5N1 to Indonesia, they have neglected for the most part to investigate its domestic significance (Curley and Herington 2011), and perhaps more importantly, the domestic context in which Siti's decision was made. It is the interaction between the securitisation of H5N1, which led to substantial funds being made available to combat the disease internationally, with the fragmented and partly transnationalised Indonesian health governance system that has shaped Siti's resort to 'viral sovereignty'.…”

From SARS to Avian Influenza: The Role of International Factors in China's Approach to Infectious Disease Control

“…In the diverse region of East Asia, traditional security issues like territorial integrity and protecting state sovereignty are still acknowledged as core to state decision making, but the threat of nontraditional security concerns like infectious disease, environmental pollution, organized crime, and terrorism have become a priority. 1,17 After Hu Jintao's appointment as President of China, there appeared to be a shift in Chinese diplomacy and rhetoric, emphasizing China's role as a responsible international state. In April 2003, Premier Wen Jiabao explicitly linked China's newly aggressive response to SARS to China's reputation as a responsible state.…”

“…Organization for Animal Health, as well as new actors, practice information sharing through mechanisms like the Global Influenza Surveillance Network and the Global Outbreak Alert and response Network, required by the International Health Regulations (IHRs) since 2007. 1,2 Yet, when confronted with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002, an unknown and extremely virulent pathogen, the People's Republic of China (PRC; hereafter referred to as China), actively rejected the assistance of international health experts, resorting to obstructionism, secrecy, and isolationism. This caused the loss of many lives and facilitated the spread of SARS to 29 states on 5 continents.…”

“…[6][7][8][9]16 Other authors have done similar analyses for other East and Southeast Asian states. 1,17…”

Securitization

“…For some, the case of environment underscores the limit of the logic of exception and illustrates the need to adopt alternative approaches. Others have argued that domestic, political, and social context within states are the key drivers of responses to infectious disease in contrast with international discourse of health security, thereby making an important step in understanding the policy challenges of implementing the global discourse of infectious disease securitization at the domestic level (Curley and Herington, 2011). Global health issues have also recently a fair amount of attention by scholars of the securitization process.…”