|
Jennifer Gustetic is a fifth-year aerospace engineering
major from Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.
She is actively involved in Florida Blue Key, Student Government
and Panhellenic Council. In the
fall of 2005, Jennifer will pursue a graduate program in security
studies.
Borders exist only in as much as there exists a
crossing of people and goods. These borders are physical and
psychological lines that states use to identify the limits of their
sovereignty. Any threat to these borders will inevitably evoke a response
from the state. Similarly, actions of the state can create threats to the
border. Essentially, threats are defined and reinforced by the actions of
a state to control them. For example, because of their negative economic
impacts, immigration and the drug trade have been identified as two security
concerns for the Unites States. Due to their concentration at the border,
these have become defined as border threats. The United States has
inadvertently improved the sophistication of these clandestine efforts by
enforcing policy with military action.
In an effort to diminish threats and
demonstrate resolve, the United States has engaged in an act that Peter
Andreas calls ‘performing the border’. With a redefinition of the
National Security Strategy of the United States by President Bush in
1991, the state of the economy became a strategic interest to the United
States. “More than preceding [national security] reports this one
attempted to broaden the definition of national security…the document
attempted to communicate the idea that American economic well-being was
included in the definition of national security.”
The significance of this public enlargement of the security definition is
a redefinition of the acceptable means used to protect the economy.
Stephen Lipchutz addresses the effects of this kind of enlargement:
“[Ole Waever] warns, therefore, that redefining
security in a conventional sense, either to encompass new sources of
threat or specify new referent objects, risks applying the traditional
logic of military behavior to non-military problems. As Waever puts it, “by
naming a certain development a security problem, the ‘state’ [clams] … a
special right [to intervene].” In intervening, the tools applied by the
state would look very much like those used during the wars the state
might launch if it chose to do so.”
By considering economic well-being a security
problem the conventional state weapons of military force are considered
legitimate means to protect it. The borders that separate one economic
entity from another thus risk becoming militarized zones. The resolve of
the state to protect its national interests is then reflected by a
display of power through policing efforts.
In the language of state resolve and power,
nothing speaks more clearly than a military presence. According to
Andreas, “border policing is not simply a policy instrument for deterring
illegal crossings but a symbolic representation of state authority; it
communicates the state’s commitment to marking and maintaining the
borderline.” In
this case, the United States is committed to deterring border activity
that has a negative economic effect.
There is an inherent irony in this commitment: as the United
States attempts to keep out ‘undesirables’—such as drugs and
immigrants—it attempts to encourage the selective free trade of ‘desirables’.
The United States’ rhetoric about protecting the economy from
undesirables is therefore a zero-sum game. Strengthening policing
maintains an appearance of border control, but it impairs trade.
Completely opening the border facilitates free trade, but it also opens
the flood gates for immigrants and drugs. Therefore, recent policy
efforts have focused on balancing. This balancing is reflected by policy
that encourages the positive effects of free trade and policing: economic
liberalization and the demonstration of resolve. This has been attempted
in tandem with minimizing the appearance of the negative consequences of
both policy objectives.
Policy has a long history of attempting to
regulate immigration. Immigration has historically been viewed by
Americans as a threat to the security of the United States, but not until
recently was it identified as an economic threat. In 1882, the Chinese Immigration
Act was passed in response to a surge of Chinese immigration. This policy
was a response to the characteristic American fear of outside
infiltration. However, the
reaction was more cultural than economic. The unintended consequence of
this policy was to encourage Chinese immigrants to illegally enter the
U.S. over the Mexican border instead of legally through California. In
the 1920’s, the Mexican border once again became an avenue for illegal
immigration when policymakers attempted to restrict European immigration.
Both attempts to regulate immigration encouraged the Mexican border to
become a conduit for an increasingly diverse immigrant population. Since Mexicans identified this
profitable opportunity in people smuggling, clandestine smuggling
networks did not take long to materialize.
Immigration has not always been viewed through
a negative lens. After the depression many U.S. companies were in
desperate need of cheap, seasonable labor in order to reinvigorate their
businesses. Policy makers thought they could provide this labor to
industry with controlled Mexican immigration. The Bracero program was a
guest-worker program in the 1940’s and 1950’s that was intended to
provide U.S. industry with temporary workers. But this too brought unexpected
consequences. “The legacy of the Bracero program was the
institutionalization of large-scale labor migration from Mexico to the
United States…the promise of guaranteed employment unintentionally
encouraged illegal border crossings.”
The Bracero program transformed illegal
immigration into both a social and an economic problem. Illegal
immigration was initially of larger economic consequence for Mexico than
for the U.S. because Mexico “came to rely on the United States as a
safety valve for [its] unemployment problems.”
Hence, the initial incentive for Mexico to reduce the supply of illegal
immigrants by enforcing its own border was minimal. Even though America’s
policy choices were intended to increase the productivity of the U.S.
economy, they unintentionally created a security dilemma. The United
States had created an illegal immigration problem that was increasing
unemployment and hindering the economy of the South. The U.S. would attempt to re-secure its
borders in order to combat these problems. They did so by literally and
figuratively creating blockades that would deter immigrants. These
blockades were of two forms: physical walls and strengthened border
policing system.
As the United States created walls to deter
illegal immigration, the U.S. destroyed other walls in the spirit of free
trade. Membership in the General Agreement in Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
and the creation of NAFTA in 1994 for the liberalization of trade were
both intended to strengthen the U.S. economy through international cooperation.
Liberalization reduced significant amounts of clandestine activity by
removing many of the tariffs that had originally encouraged it. However,
it also worsened illegal activity in areas that were not liberalized. According
to Andreas, “the lack of liberalization in… key sectors of the clandestine
economic relationship—most notably drugs and migrant labor—assured not
only the persistence but expansion of the smuggling networks built up over
a long history of protectionist economic policies.”
Thus not only did policing worsen illegal immigration, selective
liberalization did as well. In theory, true liberalization promotes the
free movement of goods and people. In practice, selective liberalization
was implemented due to immigration restrictions and drug control
policies. Policymakers recognized that by encouraging liberalization,
they would inadvertently encourage illegal immigration. This relationship
posed a serious threat to the U.S. economy. In order to control this
threat border policing efforts were escalated.
A second threat to the United States economy is
drug trafficking. In the early 1900’s the U.S. began to pass anti-drug
laws that prohibited many traditional Mexican exports such as opium and
marijuana. In order to appease both the United States and the
international community, the Mexican government matched many of these
regulation attempts with its own legislation.
Generally, Mexican attempts to regulate the domestic drug trade mimicked
the actions of the United States. One such supply-oriented drug reduction
strategy was embodied by the success of Operation Condor in 1975.
Operation Condor utilized border policing and military action to combat
the Mexican drug supply. But,
initial reductions of the Mexican supply of marijuana were undermined by
the long-term consequences of this policing effort.
“The cross border law enforcement collaboration
between the United States and Mexico, included intelligent sharing, surveillance,
and training, [and] also contributed to the campaign’s impressive
outcome. For Washington, it demonstrated the viability of a
supply-reduction strategy based on bilateral cooperation, intensified law
enforcement at the source of production, and greater use of technology…The
very success of the eradication effort led to a restructuring rather than
a permanent reduction of Mexico’s role in the drug trade…to give
comparative advantage to large scale criminal organizations.”
Instead of eliminating the drug trade, this
military approach merely restructured it. Policing attempts only worsened
the severity of problems of drug trade and illegal immigration.
Each time policing efforts were escalated,
either in response to illegal immigration or drug trafficking, the U.S.
was attempting to communicate its commitment to regaining border control.
However, this response only improved the sophistication of the smuggling
enterprise. The application of U.S. power was not generating its intended
results. According to Amos, “the purpose of power is to overcome
resistance in an effort to bring about or secure a preferred order of
things. When the resistance is generated by other human beings, the
purpose of power is to persuade those others to accept the designs or
preferences in question or to destroy their ability to offer continued resistance.”
Policymakers attempted to use American power to secure a border facing
resistance from clandestine smuggling networks. These networks have not
been persuaded to alter their actions as a result of this application of
power. Smuggling has become more sophisticated and more difficult to
control as a result of the application of power through policing. This
does not bode well for the effectiveness of American power in terms of
deterrence.
Peter Andreas believes that “when the failures
of the deterrence effort lead to a performance crisis, the performers
save face by promising a bigger a better show.” He is absolutely correct.
The U.S. has unquestionably failed to eliminate illegal immigration and
drug trafficking. It has instead relied on rhetoric and resolve alone to
maintain the appearance of power and control. The application of military
power to a non-military problem could have underlying objectives
according to Barry Bechman and Stephen Kaplan.
“The demonstrative use of force for political
objectives is a useful step to shore up a situation sufficiently so that
more extreme adverse consequences can be avoided, so that domestic and
international pressures for more forceful and perhaps counter-productive
actions can be avoided, and so that time can be gained for sounder
policies that can deal adequately with the realities of the situation to
be formulated and implemented.”
Some of these ‘sounder policies’ may be rooted
in liberalization. Robert Osgood suggests that the emergence of international
trade alliances such as NAFTA increases member states’ power and
strengthens their internal security. “Preserving internal security may
emerge as the primary purpose of alliances in the future as nations seek to
confront the increasing threats of international drug trafficking,
terrorism, cross border refuge flows, and weapons proliferation.”
Hence, the performances by the border police in the United States may be
merely setting the stage for a larger display of international resolve
and power.
Ultimately, the objectives that have been
obtained by the application of military power to illegal immigration and
the drug trade are few: communicating a commitment to eliminate a
security threat, and creating a police bureaucracy to monitor these
threats. The effectiveness of this resolve has been displayed more in
symbolic terms than in material terms. In order to maintain international
credibility, the appearance of control must be established. The
elimination of a threat and the existence of absolute control are no
longer the ultimate goals. Yet this does not render power obsolete.
According to realist thought, it is “applied power (or the evident
ability and willingness to apply power) [that] is the chief determinant
in relations among nations. Unwillingness to act invites others to take
command of the situation.”
The United States is thus consistent with the tenets of power politics by
applying power to deal with a security concern. Regardless of the success
of this power in deterring the threat, its mere application means that
power is still the primary tool for relations among states.
According to liberals such as Jessica Matthews,
“[the] accepted definition of the limits of national sovereignty as
coinciding with national borders is obsolete.”
From this perspective, now more than ever state security relies on
international cooperation. “As interdependence takes shape in its
multiple political, economic, and other forms, national leaders are
increasingly recognizing that closer cooperation is mandatory for both
the economic welfare and the national security of the polities.”
This school of thought interprets membership in NAFTA and the creation of
the GATT as an example of
the use of cooperation to address economic security threats. To liberals,
the most effective way in the long term to reduce illegal immigration and
drug trafficking would be the continuation of economic liberalization.
International relations theory aside, the
notions of ‘performing the border’ and ‘performing security’ have
materialized through the application of U.S. power. The U.S. justifies
this application of military power because of a redefinition of security
that encompasses the economic threats produced by illegal immigration and
drug trafficking. Though this application of power is not obsolete, it
does not achieve the objective of deterring these threats. Thus, an
escalation of power ensues in an effort to demonstrate resolve and
maintain an appearance of control and security. Security lies in the eye
of the beholder, and the United States has attempted to maintain an
appearance of security so that its power is not questioned. In this
regard, security and power have become both means and ends of the border
control escalation.
Works Cited
[1] Amos, A. ‘American
National Security’. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore.
4th Edition. 1993.Page 84
2 Lipshutz, Ronnie D. ‘On
security’. Columbia University Press. New York. 1995. Pages 9-10.
3 Andreas, Peter. Border Games: Policing the U.S.-Mexico
Divide. Cornell University Press. 2000. Page 8.
4 Andreas, Peter. Pages 34-35.
5 Andreas, Peter. Pages 33.
6 Andreas, Peter. Page 37.
7 Andreas, Peter. Pages
31-32.
8 Andreas,
Peter. Page 40.
9 Andreas,
Peter. Pages 41-42.
10 Amos, A. Page 13.
11 Amos, A. Page 44.
12 Amos, A. Page 36.
13 Amos, A. Page 14.
14 Matthews, Jessica. ‘Redefining Security’. Foreign Affairs 68:2. 1989.
Page 174.
15 Amos, A. Page 15.
|
