I. Background

Links between security and free trade are promoted and presented in various contexts and from several perspectives. It appears at the macro-policy level as well as in the micro-level security concerns resulting from emerging forms of new free trade agreements (FTAs).

Trade and security interlinks have increasingly appeared in the discourse promoted around free trade by the United States, especially after the 9/11 attacks. Is also appears in the context of the EU agreements that it presents as  ¢â‚¬Ëœcomprehensive partnership agreements' with neighboring regions and countries.

In principle, it could be argued that today security and trade are the two major discussion points in the context of international geo-politics and economic relations. Since the events of 9/11, security has dominated the concerns of decision-makers and policy analysts. It took center focus in trade strategies to an extent that some trade agreements actually stemmed from security concerns and were entrenched in what is referred to as the  ¢â‚¬Ëœwar on terrorism' campaign. We are currently witnessing a convergence in the trade and security policies of major economic powers such as the EU and the US, which is being reflected through various forms; either through annexes to trade agreements or through being integrated in different forms of policies within broader agreements.

This paper tries to shed light on the trade and security discourse as presented by both the critical and conservative voices. It highlights examples of how the US and EU exercise such discourse through the FTAs they establish with various countries. Furthermore, the paper looks at a couple of examples of specific sources of concerns on personal and national securities caused by the current forms of FTAs.

II. Trade as promoted today threatens security

Several approaches and studies try to promote that trade is means for peace and that countries that trade with each other are less likely to have war with each other[1], accordingly, trade becomes a factor for decreasing conflicts. Such perspective builds on the assumption that through "forging direct links between countries, trade creates a situation of mutual dependence that conflict may menace"[2]. Indeed, the trade and security links have been recognized and studied as part of various political science schools centuries ago. French philosopher Montesquieu wrote[3] that  ¢â‚¬Ëœwherever there is commerce, manners become gentle' (Humphreys, 2003 p8[4]). He added that the natural effect of commerce is to bring peace; for "two nations that negotiate between themselves become reciprocally dependent". Today, many see that the European Union relied on trade ties at the first stages of its development as a means to bring countries together and overcome conflict. The creation of the European Economic Community in 1958 owed much to the belief of its founding fathers in the building of a community of nations through trade[5].

However, the current global trading system actually creates a situation where only developing countries become and stay dependent on developed ones. In fact, as currently aggressively and insensitively applied, trade policy can increase inequality and poverty, weaken government structures and limit policy tools and choices, causing instability and increasing the chance of conflict[6].

In the current context, the high level of commercial, financial, investment and in many cases migratory dependency of countries created through the FTAs leads to a situation where  ¢â‚¬Ëœgreater integration of one country in the global economy' actually means  ¢â‚¬Ëœgreater integration and dependence on the internal situations and dynamics in another country'. This for many countries is mainly becoming more integration in the United States[7]. Trade agreements, especially bilateral FTAs, have been constructed in a way that restructures the trade of Southern countries according to the needs of the Northern partner contractor, mainly the US and the EU. Beyond that, current agreements are being expanded to restructure and harmonize security measures and policies according to priorities and needs of the US and the EU as well.

In addition to bilateral FTAs, also regional trade between countries of widely differing size, wealth and influence, and without careful negotiations and implementation can lead to enhancing inequalities, creating tensions, and triggering conflict. Membership in trade institutions and agreements do not necessarily create bonds of trust[8]. Neither are trade institutions and their dispute settlement mechanisms- as developed today- the best means to mediate disputes, especially if disputes have wider social and political dimensions[9].

Furthermore, the current deregulation process could lead to a situation where trade may actually directly contribute to conflict and insecurity by providing export and earning opportunities for groups engaged in conflict. This is because export markets seldom discriminate between products produced under the rule of legitimate governments and those whose revenues fund armed groups or those products produced and exported in accordance with national laws or others illegally exported[10].

Although certain international frameworks and pacts have been associated with efforts to mitigate negative security consequences of increased trade- such as the  ¢â‚¬ËœKimberley pact' and the  ¢â‚¬ËœEuropean Forest Law, Enforcement, Governance, and Trade Initiative in 2003'- the structural ways in which trade policy promotes instability still needs to be addressed[11].

Yet, there often has been a deliberate form of de-linking between policy considerations that make the connection between trade issues on one hand and political military ones, national sovereignty, and human rights on the other hand. Often, official spokespersons and business leaders try to reflect that by saying "In the press and in many seminars and forums, the theme of sovereignty appears when dealing with economic themes like the Canada-US-Mexico common market- this bores me"[12].

This context needs to be faced by opening space for better understanding and more empirical data on inter-relations between trade liberalization processes and security situations. One of the recommendations that appeared in the literature on trade and conflict relations is the need to conduct conflict assessments of existing and forthcoming trade agreements, moving beyond the economic and social impacts to look at the impacts on economic and political stability as well[13]. This will in turn help enhance the understandings on the inter-relation between the trade processes as currently globally administered and the conflict generation factors around the world. This in addition ought to be applied to aid policies associated with trade. Aid should help countries and communities access the real benefits of a fair international trade system and not enforce an unjust and undemocratic global trade system that hijacks development opportunities from developing countries.

III. Exploitation of the discourse on security and trade links

The trade and security interlinks and the discourse on their mutual dependency has been exploited by developed countries to promote unjust trade agreements and inadequate security frameworks. This discourse have been lately often upheld and promoted by conservative schools of thoughts and more vibrantly by the US Bush administration. This discourse have focused on the claim that free trade, free markets, and free peoples bring prosperity and peace and is needed to avoid economic and political repression that breeds poverty, frustration, and resentment[14].

Such line of thought have been aggressively appearing in the US policy approaches to trade; in fact the US national security strategy assumes that free trade and open markets can be as important to securing the peace for the long run as robust military funding. It states that "economic growth supported by free trade and free markets creates new jobs and higher incomes. It allows people to lift their lives out of poverty, spurs economic and legal reform, and the fight against corruption, and it reinforces the habits of liberty".[15] The former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick has repeatedly argued that trade is essential to the fight against terrorism[16]. In an op-ed appearing on September 20th, 2001 in the Washington Post, Zoellick insisted that "fast track"[17] is a vital component of the U.S.-led war on terrorism[18].

Indeed, during July 2007, while the Bush administration was trying to push for passing FTAs with four countries through Congress (agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea), the administration used national security as an argument in support of the four free-trade deals. Furthermore, it increasingly pointed to trade as a weapon to block the influence of regimes that seek to promote socialist ideas in Latin America and elsewhere[19]. In essence, this tends to support the point of views that see in trade as administered today a threat to the national policy-making capacities of developing countries; it represents trade as a tool that can indeed dismantle the capacities of a state to rule and govern, thus leading to increasing vulnerability of states to destabilization.

Yet, what is more alarming in the US position is that it only supports the assumption that free trade is in the service of security if free trade is done according to its own terms. For example, the Bush administration trust in free trade did not stop it from threatening India when the latter was participating in a pipeline project for liquefied natural gas that would run from Iran through Pakistan to India. For that purposes, the Bush administration threatened India with the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which allows the US President to penalize any company that invests more than $20 million per year in Iran's energy sector[20]. This shows how the US is ready to stand in the face of trade promotion when it does not see its own terms reflected in it.

Accordingly, many of the conservative voices inside the US are actually against the involvement of their country in the multilateral trading regime, as they see in it an attack on the sovereignty of the US people and a threat to their political liberty[21]. One increasingly hears voices inside the US pushing towards moving to bilateral free trade agreements, where the US can enforce the rules and regulations on trade and security issues that it prefers, while avoiding any compromise to the international community or to the interest of developing countries. Consequently, the current adopted trade policies tend to result in exactly the opposite of what is being promoted by the US in the discourse it chooses on trade and security interlinks.

The US pushing such discourse in various regional trade groupings

Beyond the circles inside the US, the trade and security inter-links have widely appeared in various trade agreements and pacts after the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, among the factors that led to launching the WTO Doha round of negotiations and presenting it as the  ¢â‚¬ËœDoha Development Agenda' was the link promoted between the attacks, terrorism, and the deterioration of economic opportunities in many developing countries. The US and other developed countries claimed that the new round of negotiations will tend to remedy the trade system to be in favor of developing countries and is thus needed for security concerns as well. This tended to be one of the major selling points for the Doha Round of negotiations in 2001.

Moreover, in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)[22] Summit undertaken during October 2001, which was the first major international summit after 9/11, member countries agreed to combat terrorism through an enhanced trade liberalization drive. They noted that the attacks in the Untied States have further increased the downside risks of the global and regional economic outlook and thus trade and investment liberalization efforts should be enhanced so as to combat terrorism through economic prosperity. This practically would be reflected in enhancing transportation, energy, and border security cooperation as well as exchange of intelligence information on terrorism. That was the first time in the 13-year history of the APEC forum that a political declaration has been issued[23]. Trade and security issues have reappeared in other APEC forums as well[24].

Moreover, in November 2005, the United States and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)[25] developed a statement entitled "ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced Partnership", aiming at strengthening ties and increasing cooperation across a range of economic, political and security issues. The vision statement establishes mutual goals and priorities for the two sides; it tries to instigate a relation between the foreign ministers and trade ministers of the ASEAN nations and the U.S. secretary of state and U.S. trade representative. The statement calls for closer collaboration in fighting transnational crimes, including terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drug trafficking, and trafficking in persons.   In addition, it pushes for strengthening economic cooperation through the Enterprise for ASEAN Initiative (EAI), to increase trade and investment flows between ASEAN countries and the United States, as they prepare to negotiate a trade and investment framework agreement (TIFA)[26].

IV. Example of the US and EU trade policies in the Middle East; clear inter-linkage between trade and security policies

Trade pacts of the US and the EU towards Middle Eastern Arab countries have been highly intertwined with security policies of each country towards this region. It could be seen in both the timing of the agreements as well as the framework and content of the signed contracts.

The US trade agreements with the Arab countries

The US Bush administration argues that global trade liberalization is a central piece of the US national security and the counteroffensive against terrorism[27]. Accordingly, the US trade interest in the region witnessed a jump start after the 9/11 incidents; the bilateral free trade agreement with Jordan was signed a few weeks after 9/11. It was followed by an agreement with Morocco (negotiations started 2003 and agreement was signed 2005), Bahrain (signed 2004 and came into force 2006), and Oman (signed 2006). Currently, negotiations are undergoing on and off with Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In 2003, the US announced an initiative towards a US- Middle East Free Trade Area by the year 2013. The new trade initiative is promoted by the administration as means to combat terrorism, and the Islamist extremism that underlies it, by promoting economic and political development in the  ¢â‚¬ËœMuslim world'. It is presented as "opening a trade front in the war on terrorism"[28].

Earlier, the peace process in the Middle East and the US alliance with Israel, including the efforts of the US to stand up for Israel's security in the region, were reflected in an agreement that tried to enhance ties between Arab countries and Israel. This model of agreement was entitled the Qualified Industrial Zones Treaty (QIZ); it was signed with Jordan right after the Israeli& Palestinian peace negotiations were undertaken in 1993 and the Jordan Israel peace treaty signed in 1994. The agreement requires an 11% Israeli component in any product to have market and quota free access to the US. Accordingly, it unduly associates broader US economic policy in the Arab region with American support for Israel. It thus further complicates relations–political and financial–between the US and the Arab region. Such agreements could lead to a situation where the normalization of relations with Israel becomes a process independent of the political negotiations and progress towards finding a just solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Indeed, it could be means to secure the existence of Israel in the region while over-passing the preconditions of ending occupation, recognizing the rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination. Currently, the US has a QIZ agreement with Egypt as well.

This approach is continuously being reinforced inside the US; the 9/11 commission report- released during July 2004 noted that the US should develop a comprehensive US strategy for the Middle East to counter terrorism, which includes economic policies[29].

The EU trade agreements with Arab Mediterranean countries

Security issues have been a center piece in the partnership initiative launched in Barcelona between the EU and Southern Mediterranean countries in 1995. This initiative also came in the context of follow-up for the steps undertaken in the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. The initiative integrated three tracks; (1) economic development and trade liberalization (2) human rights and cultural issues (3) security and stability in the region. In principle, the EU saw in the Mediterranean region an unstable region with economic backwardness, political unrest, military proliferation, and evolving migration trends that became a priority domestic issue for many European states. Within this context, the EU repeatedly attempted to adopt a Euro-Med Charter for Peace and Stability, although its attempts did not succeed and was hindered mostly by complications in the Arab-Israeli relations over the 90's and early 2000[30].

The EU plans of partnership with the Southern Mediterranean countries, proposed that trade can be used to bind the countries' interests into a shared future. However, the actual legal and socio-economic developments (including adjustment costs, social dislocations, widening wealth inequalities, decrease in the ability of state to provide for basic social services ¢â‚¬Â¦) resulting from the agreement defies all efforts towards a more stable and prosperous region. Ironically, exacerbation of the security threats arising from the region, especially those related to extremism and migration trends, are expected to increase with the deterioration of socio-economic conditions resulting from the trade measures undertaken within the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.

Indeed, The EU partnership has not helped Southern countries to face the challenge of employment, nor there has been progress in purchasing power parity for the ten Southern Mediterranean partners[31]. The sustainability impact assessment of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area, which was commissioned by the European Commission, highlighted negative short and medium term implications of the agreements on Southern partner countries. The current industrial free trade areas have put a negative impact on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate in Southern developing countries. Strong negative impacts on employment and human poverty levels as well as the human development index have been shown. These socio-economic deteriorations will lead to increasing negative impacts and obstacles on the advances of civil and political rights in the region. The situation is only now beginning to deteriorate with the start of the implementation calendar of the agreements. Tunisia started the four years of transition in 2006. Accordingly, several of the partner countries will witness in the next few years deterioration of budget resources and macro-economic policy situations. This could lead to a break in the social sustainability threshold of various groups and communities living in the region, which could lead to either large migration movements or social shifts toward extremism[32].

The US and EU aid arms and terrorism policies

In addition, the aid arms associated with the economic and trade pacts of the US and the EU in the region reflect a growing inter-linkage with the policies of security and terrorism adopted by the latter. The US was the first to draw upon the connections between militarization, terrorism, and aid. It imposed on countries and institutions that benefit from its aid programs the signature of a certificate whereby they commit themselves not to work with organizations and individuals that are judged by the US administration as linked to terrorism. The EU is linking aid to fighting terrorism as well; European ministers have warned countries that their relations with the economically powerful bloc will suffer if they fail to cooperate in the fight against terrorism. An EU official was quoted saying, "Aid and trade could be affected if the fight against terrorism was considered insufficient". This opens way for legitimate questioning of the neutrality, impartiality, and independence of humanitarian assistance[33].

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Agreement: a new form of enforced harmonization

As information and knowledge on free trade agreements and their impacts have increased, these agreements have been increasingly challenged both by legislatures and the public. Under this context, neo-liberal forces and their corporate allies tended to link up their liberalization policies to security and anti-terrorism policies, and tried cut off the legislature participation and oversight over these processes. The model they choose to overcome those arising obstacles was the SPP.

The SPP agreement was launched by the heads of states of the US, Canada, and Mexico in March 2005, and was signed as a separate agreement. It is not an official treaty or law. It is an agreement completely at the level of the executive branches; it requires no vote by Congress, or Canadian and Mexican legislatures, and is not subject to Congressional oversight[34]. The SPP is being presented as a vague "dialogue based on shared values", therefore being able to escape public scrutiny[35].

The SPP is intended to complement the NAFTA[36] agreement; based on the theory that an agenda of economic free trade and national security will result in human prosperity. Yet, all what is known about its structure and mechanisms of work show that the prosperity it refers to is nothing but corporate prosperity that leads to increasing poverty and people displacement rates. Many see in the SPP free trade coupled with military policy and aimed at the "deep integration" of the US, Canada, and Mexico.

According to Laura Carlsen of the International Relations Center in Canada, the SPP has three fundamental objectives; (1) to create more advantageous conditions for transnational corporations, (2) to remove remaining barriers to the flow of capital and cross-border production within the framework of NAFTA and secure access to natural resources, especially oil, and (3) to create a regional security plan based on  ¢â‚¬Ëœpushing US borders out' into a security perimeter that includes Mexico and Canada.

The SPP's stated goals are the following:

I. Establishing a cooperative approach to advance in common security and prosperity
II. Promoting economic growth, competitiveness, and quality of life
III. Developing a common security strategy to further secure North America, focusing on:
a. Securing North America from external threats
b. Preventing and responding to internal threats within North America
c. Streamlining the secure and efficient movement of legitimate and low-risk traffic across shared borders

The SPP has twenty working groups that operate quietly in the NAFTA office in the US Department of Commerce. These groups include manufactured goods and sectoral and regional competitiveness, e-Commerce and ICT, energy, transportation, food and agriculture, environment, financial services, business facilitation, movement of goods, health, and immigration. The SPP scope is not restricted; leaked minutes of a 2004 meeting of the Task Force on the Future of North America[37] noted that "No item & not Canadian water, not Mexican oil, not American anti-dumping laws &  ¢â‚¬Ëœis off the table'; rather, contentious or intractable issues will simply require more time to ripen politically"[38].

The only institutionalized structure within the SPP is the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). The NACC, created during the second summit of the SPP in March 2006 in Cancun, is the only formal advisory board to the SPP. It has been mandated to set priorities for the SPP and to act as a driver of the integration process through changes in government in all three countries.

This body is made of 10 corporate chief executive officers (CEOs) from each of Mexico, the United States, and Canada [30 in total], including Wal-Mart, Chevron, Lockheed Martin, FedEx, General Electric, and Ford. In short, the NACC, representing private corporate interests, has been "institutionalized" as a policy-making body, thus formalizing and deepening the existing patterns of influence that corporations already have[39].

A report by the Council of Americas on an NACC meeting highlights that "leadership from governments that recognize the importance of business issues to the overall social welfare empowers the private sector to engage substantively and pragmatically on trade and security issues without undue deference to political sensibilities."[40] It notes as well that the NACC will make sure that, "governments look to the private sector to tell them what needs to be done."

The NACC meets annually with senior government officials to advise them on corporate priorities for the SPP. Meetings and summits of the NACC, as other gathering of the SPP and the work of its working groups, are highly secretive.

The NACC as a whole has agreed on three overall priorities of work: border crossing facilitation (to be handled by the Canadian NACC members), regulatory convergence (to be handled by the U.S. NACC), and energy integration (to be handled by the Mexican NACC members). The SPP will harmonize over 300 common areas of legislation and regulations.

Basically the NACC have been given the task of pushing integration between the three countries beyond NAFTA. Opponents believe that once the connections and integration negotiations are completed, the proponents will bring to congress an "already baked cake" for them to expedite legislation codifying the agreements[41].

Accordingly, the SPP, with the complete absence of public involvement, is working towards deep integration of the three countries and emphasizing deregulation and harmonization of standards among them, including advocating policies which would lead to integrated continental court systems and currency. The Council of Canadians has argued that this push towards economic union "will lead to the privatization of [Canada's] health care, the loss of control over national resources, and further compromises in trade deals.

In principle, the SPP aligns with the regular expected action by the US to progressively push for expanding the content and scope of its free trade agreements over time. Just as the NAFTA was the model upon which the other hemispheric free trade agreements are based, the SPP will be the model to give transnational capitalism use of what political science calls the "coercive powers of the state"[42]. Accordingly, it is expected that the SPP model could be promoted with other regions and countries that the US have signed or intends to sign FTAs with.

V. Discourse on trade and security at the UN

The UN Human Development Report released in advance of the 2005 UN Summit called for swift and dramatic changes in global aid, trade, and security policies to fulfill the promises made by the international community when world leaders gathered at the Millennium Summit in 2000. The Millennium Declaration stressed the link between peace, security, and the fight against poverty and for democracy. Accordingly, the UN HDR focuses on the role richer countries must play to defeat poverty, in three vital areas–aid, trade, and security. Failure in any one area will undermine the foundations for future progress; its lead author notes that "more effective rules in international trade will count for little in countries where violent conflict undermines opportunities to participate in trade. Increased aid without fairer trade rules will deliver sub-optimal results. And peace will remain a fragile entity without the prospects for improved human welfare and poverty reduction that can be provided through aid and trade."

Furthermore, the UN General Assembly in September 2005 instated the idea of a responsibility to protect which is centered on the primary responsibility of the state to protect its citizens. This is a principle that should be incorporated as part of any aid and trade strategy; it necessitates moving beyond just reactive responses to conflict to an active stands on how current policies systematically undermine the peace and development process of many countries[43].

The leading role of the UN on achieving policy coherence in global policy-making is part of the ongoing debate on the reform of the UN. It questions the ability of the UN to bring the policies of international institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization under the umbrella of the UN; thus having global policies serve and not hinder governments' commitments to human rights, the right to development, and the right to protect.

VI. Specific sources of concerns on personal and national securities caused by the current forms of FTAs

New generation FTAs require- to various degrees- harmonization of environmental, copyright, patent, and even tax laws. These treaties place a nation's fundamental regulatory structure up for review by unaccountable elites[44].

Through its various implications, FTAs are imposing conditionalities as well as exposing security fragilities. Extreme investment chapters and investor rights as well as intellectual property rights rules are exposing countries and individuals to situations where state and personal securities are impacted.

Such rules have given individual multinational corporations the right to deem national environmental laws as "non-tariff barriers to trade". They empowered corporations to bring suit against these laws before trade tribunals. Such tribunals operate behind closed doors and can issue sanctions that make regulations they deem unacceptable prohibitively costly to national governments.

These agreements protect the right of corporations but do virtually nothing to ensure even minimal labor standards and security for workers and national citizens. It also enhances the rights of extraction companies, and thus indirectly supports trade in resources from conflict regions, leading to prolonging conflicts and abuse of workers' rights.

Trade in undesirable products: the sale of security & surveillance technology

Trade and investment agreements and deregulation processes have rapidly developed, opening way for increased misuse of trade for exchange of undesirable, conflict-related, as well as illegal products. One of these cases currently being exposed is the trade in dual-use technologies such as electronics, telecommunications, information security, sensors, and surveillance technologies and software. These technologies have developed very fast that they have outpaced the regulation in export controls and safeguard procedures set in place. Accordingly, opportunities for the use of these technologies by repressive regimes, and in violation of human rights, have increased. This is more abundant as the current trade agreements do not differentiate between recipient countries. Moreover, the current trade agreements still do not look at the human rights implications of the processes and deregulations being promoted[45].

Accordingly, current trade rules end up indirectly enhancing violations of political and civic rights as well as personal security of individuals in certain repressive countries; these include facilitating arrests of human rights defenders, pro-democracy campaigners, trade union organizers, and political dissidents. Some European countries have actually started looking into human rights screening and impact assessments of such kinds of trade[46]. Besides that, current efforts are being developed at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to develop norms to clarify the responsibility of the private sector with regards to human rights (http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/norms-Aug2003.html). Yet, without clear commitment from national governments to take action on these needed regulations, the big corporations benefiting from the big trade deals in such dual-use technology will not move voluntarily on abiding by these rules that could jeopardize their profit. This is specifically trickier because in dealing with such cases one should not suggest more restrictions on access to new technologies for developing countries, but rather should focus on the responsibility of the exporting country and private company to apply adequate checks and balances when dual-use technology is being exported.

The Case of Port Security

The US-Oman FTA (OFTA) was signed on January 19th, 2006; it is a copy of the NAFTA and CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) models of FTAs. The debate over the OFTA reflects the complications arising from the extreme liberalization and deregulation conditions imposed by this new generation of FTAs.

The investment chapter of OFTA incorporates the right to establishment, which gives any company established in Oman the right to acquire and operate port facilities and other service sector businesses within the United States  ports (OFTA Art.11-4). This has raised several concerns for national security inside the US. The US Congress has raised several concerns about the implications of these provisions on national security considerations and the ability to protect the security of U.S. ports.  In fact, operation of port facilities was a cause of a dispute between the US and the United Arab Emirates in the process of negotiations over a US-UAE FTA, whereby the US Congress refuted a proposal to give Dubai Company  ¢â‚¬ËœDubai Ports World' control over port activities in the US. Furthermore, the OFTA provisions give foreign firms the right to take the United States to foreign tribunals in case the latter take any action to stop these firms from controlling US port operations[47].

Basically, the proliferation of extreme trade agreements have increased the flow of trade and the deregulation of investments without looking at security or developmental implications and without setting in place the needed regulations to control and/or mitigate expected implications. For the US, it had impacted their ability to screen the huge amounts of cargo, which is one of the major vulnerabilities cited by the 9/11 commission[48]. Moreover, it limited their abilities to control their own ports. This is the case as well for the countries that sign these agreements with the US as well. However, the partner countries are mostly still developing countries and surely lack financial and other capacities and resources needed to mitigate the downturns of such uncalculated agreements.

In 2002, the US Bureau of Customs and Border protection (agency of Department of Homeland Security in the US) launched the Container Security Initiative with the aim of increasing security of cargo shipped to the United States. Basically, the US insists that security concerns are evident in any trade activity; thus security considerations should not be an obstacle for further trade and investment deregulation but should becomes a driver for trade facilitation.

In August 2007, the US president signed a law approving a proposal by Congress that requires 100 per cent screening of ships bound to US ports at their over 600 foreign starting points. Both the Bush administration and shipping groups say that the technology for scanning 11 million containers each year does not exist and say the requirement could disrupt trade[49]. The law intends to fulfill recommendations of the commission that investigated government activities before and after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. The law sets a five-year deadline for having the system in place, but recognizing the technology still might not be available, gives the Homeland Security Secretary the authority to extend the deadline by two-year increments[50].

While such security concerns arising from extreme FTAs are not answered to even in the US, it is yet unclear what drastic implications would result for developing countries that are accepting the US FTA template and provisions.

Footnotes

[1] Brown, Oli; Haq, Faisal; Shaheen Shaheen; Khan, Rafi; Yusuf, Moeed (October 2005)- "Regional Trade Agreements: Promoting conflict or building peace?" p.8, International Institute for Sustainable development, available at www.iisd.org

Trade and security links appear in several works including Sturgis (1969); Macartan Humphreys "Economics and Violent Conflict" (Feb 2003) Harvard University; Polacheck, Solomon W. and Seiglie Rutgers, Carlos on "Trade, Peace and Democracy: An Analysis of Dyadic Dispute"; Brooks, Stephen G. "Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the Changing Calculus of Conflict"

[2] Brown, Oli; Halle, Mark; Pe ƒÂ±a Moreno, Sonia; Winkler, Sebastian- "Trade, Aid, and Security chapter Trade, Aid and Security; An Agenda for Peace and Development", published by Earthscan, London- Copyright © IISD and IUCN, 2007

[3] See Montesquieu "Le Commerce Adoucit les Moeurs"

[4] Sited from Trade, Aid and Security; An Agenda for Peace and Development- Introduction Chapter by Duncan Brack

[5] Same as reference 2

[6] Same as reference 4, p 14

[7] Saxe-Fern ƒÂ¡ndez, John; "NAFTA: More than just Free Trade"- refer to the section on high cost of loans

[8] Same as reference 2, p.12

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Brown, Oli; "EU Trade Policy and Conflict" (March 2005) p. 13- International Institute for Sustainable Development

[12] Same as reference 7

[13] Same as reference 11- p. 14

[14] Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr. and Sara J. Fitzgerald; "Trade Brings Security" (February 11, 2003)- Gerald P. O'Driscoll Jr. is senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Sara Fitzgerald is a trade policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation. This article originally appeared in The Orange County Register on February 11, 2003. Available online at http://www.cato.org/research/articles/fitzgerald-030211.html

[15] ibid.

[16] John, Buell; "Weighing World Trade, Terrorism and Democracy"- published on Tuesday, October 23, 2001 in the Bangor Daily News

[17] Fast track would give the US president authority to negotiate trade agreements without revision by Congress-the latter could only vote for or against a proposed bill, without amendments.

[18] Eric, Laursen; "Terrorism and Free Trade"-  VillageVoice.com
(November 5th, 2001), available online at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=718

[19] Keith Koffler; "TRADE FTA Push Moves to Top of Bush Agenda"- National Journal's Congress Daily- (Wednesday, July 18, 2007)

[20] Ivan Eland, "Free Trade vs. National Security: Is There Really a Contradiction?" (March 21, 2005), available online at www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1482)

[21] Alan, Keyes; "Trading liberty for  ¢â‚¬Ëœfree' trade", (December 10, 1999)- Available at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/keyes/991210/ Alan Keyes served as President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, was a member of the staff of the National Security Council, and represented U.S. interests in the U.N. General Assembly as ambassador to the United Nations Economic and  Social Council. He is chairman of the Declaration Foundation, the Declaration Alliance, and Renew America. Available at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/keyes/991210

[22] APEC came together in the beginning of the 90's; it consists of 21 members, which includes most countries with a coastline on the Pacific Ocean. Together, these countries represent about 60% of the world economy

[23] "APEC to combat terrorism with free trade and investment"- appeared in Asian Political News,  Oct 22, 2001, SHANGHAI, available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2001_Oct_22/ai_80338998

[24] Carrie, Loewenthal; "U.S. To Focus on Trade, Global Security at Asia-Pacific Meetings", (10 November 2006) available at http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=November&x=20061110133538MVyelwarC0.5135614-

[25] ASEAN has ten member countries including Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Myanmar, Laos, Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia

[26] (17 November 2005)- United States, ASEAN Nations Commit to Enhanced Partnership; Vision statement- available at http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=November&x=20051117154502ASesuarK0.7490351

[27] Riad al Khouri; "National Security Aspects of Western-Middle East Free Trade Agreements", p.176

[28] Brink Lindsey, Director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies; "The Trade Front: Combating Terrorism with Open Markets"

[29] Same as reference 27, p.189

[30] Ibid, p. 181/2

[31] Iv ƒÂ¡n, Mart ƒÂ­n; "In Search of Development along the Southern Border: The Economic Models Underlying the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and the European Neighbourhood Policy", Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

[32] Ibid

[33] Ziad Abdel Samad, "Financing for Development in the Arab region; a case of a region at crossroads"- presented at the workshop of Financing for Equity and Development& Beirut, Lebanon (March 12, 2006), available at www.annd,org

[34] Chuck Kaufman; "Will Security and Prosperity Partnerships End Dissent as We Know It?" (August 13, 2007 available at: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=102&ItemID=13525

[35] "Do You Know about the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement?" available at: www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=1355

[36] The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a free trade bloc created between the United States, Canada, and Mexico in 1994

[37] The Independent Task force on North America was a project by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, advocating greater social and economic integration between the three countries. It was launched in October 2004. Two of its main documents are "Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010' (March 2005) and  ¢â‚¬ËœBuilding a North American Community' (May 2005). Recommendations by the Task Force led to the creation of the SPP.

[38] Same as reference 35

[39] Ibid.

[40] Report on "Findings of Public-Private Sector Dialogue on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America"- Council of the Americas, North American Business Committee, January 10-11, 2006, Louisville, Kentucky

[41] About the SPP- Wikipedia

[42] Same as reference 33

[43] Axworthy, Lloyd; Forward Chapter, "Trade, Aid, and Security: an Agenda for Peace and Development"

[44] John Buell; "Weighing World Trade, Terrorism and Democracy"- (Tuesday, October 23, 2001) published in the Bangor Daily News

[45] For more information on this and specifically the case of the Canadian exports of surveillance technology to China, please see "Human Rights at Risk on the Cyber-battlefield: The Sale of Security & Surveillance Technology to China"- Rights and Democracy- Canada, November 2004

[46] Examples of work done on safeguard measures and human rights considerations related to trade in undesirable products include:

(1) Code of Conduct for Arms Exports adopted by the EU in 1998 which makes special reference to human rights concerns. According to Criterion 2 of the Code, states will,

"exercise special caution and vigilance in issuing licences, on a case-by-case basis and taking account of the nature of the equipment, to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the competent bodies of the UN, the Council of Europe or by the EU... For these purposes, equipment which might be used for internal repression will include, inter alia, equipment where there is evidence of the use of this or similar equipment for internal repression by the proposed end-user, or where there is reason to believe that the equipment will be diverted from its stated end-use or end-user and used for internal repression ¢â‚¬Â¦ the nature of the equipment will be considered carefully, particularly if it is intended for internal security purposes." Council of the European Union, Code of Conduct on Arms Exports: http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?lang=en&id=408&mode=g&name=#exp3

(2) The Wassenaar Arrangement for Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual Use Weapons and Technologies of which it is a member.

[47] Lori Wallach; "Close Vote on Tiny Oman Free Trade Agreement Exposes Shifts in US Trade Politics", (Tuesday, August 1, 2006) CommonDreams.org
Available at: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0801-35.htm

[48] Rep. Michael Michaud; "Oman: Another Deeply Flawed Trade Agreement", appeared in Magic City Morning Star (Jul 21, 2006), available at http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=5331

[49] "International- U.S. fears nuclear attack, steps up alert", appeared in The Hindu (27/08/2007) and available at: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/08/27/stories/2007082756361600.htm

[50] Ibid

| More...