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

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.

Rethinking depoliticisation: beyond the governmental

“…Put simply, securitisation theory has in recent years identified a distinct pattern of depoliticisation that tends to involve the identification of an existential threat that requires emergency executive powers, and, if the audience accepts the securitising move, the issue is depoliticised and is considered a 'security' issue outside the rules of normal politics (Balzacq, 2005;Salter, 2008;Salter and Piche, 2011). As such, security studies often regard the politicisation of an issue as representing a form of 'desecuritisation' (Kinnvall and Nesbitt-Larking, 2010;Salter and Piche, 2011). This discursive process may be called 'securitisation' in the sense that it makes issues 'more firmly constrained… decisions about them are taken in technical terms' (Edkins, 1999, 11).…”

Disciplining the Transnational Mobility of People

“…Security studies have proliferated exponentially since 9/11, with many arguing that as a discourse, security has come to dominate the way in which states and international actors organize everyday life (Bajc and de Lint, 2011;Bigo and Tsoukala, 2008). While it is perhaps obvious that security has become a paramount concern for sovereign states and international networks, it is also important to stress that as a concept, security is also being problematized, and subject to new forms of governance that are not otherwise reducible to sovereign power over territory, nor necessarily to one dominant discourse or speaker (Salter and Piché, 2012). Jon Coaffee and David Murakami Wood argue that security is undergoing a period of rescaling, de-territorialization and re-territorialization, wherein concerns of international security are penetrating structures of governance at every level (Coaffee and Wood, 2006).…”

Cross-border terror networks: a social network analysis of the Canada–US border

“…Nonetheless, the "New Fenianism" that has pervaded US discourse since 9/11 worries that "the expansive commercial cross-border networks and routes (both legal and illegal) can now be exploited to smuggle terrorists and weapons of mass destruction into the United States" (Andreas, 2005, p. 460;Salter & Piché, 2011). American elites, including journalists, a Senator and a Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the former director of MIT's Security Studies Program have alleged as much (Sapolsky, 2005, p. 31).…”