Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Trade-Security Nexus in the Asia-Pacific

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Linking Trade and Security

Part of the book series: The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific ((PEAP,volume 1))

Abstract

The connections between trade and security are hardly new. Analysts and practitioners have clearly recognized this interrelationship since the mercantilist era of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Despite the fact that economic liberals often prefer to separate the political from the economic, it is widely recognized that trade and security are fundamentally interconnected in the foreign policy of states. Over time, as new forms of trade policy have come into being and the international security environment has evolved, the nexus of these two spheres has grown more complex and scholars have struggled to understand their interconnection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For arguments that trade reduces conflict, see for example Bearce and Fisher (2002); Jungblut and Stoll (2002); Keshk et al. (2004); Maoz (2009); Oneal et al. (2003); and Souva and Prins (2006). Those who claim that trade dependence has no effect include Goenner (2004); Kim and Rousseau (2005); Pevehouse (2004); and Ward et al. (2007).

  2. 2.

    For example, Gartzke and Li (2003a, b) show that alternative variable constructions and model specifications are sometimes sufficient to account for discrepant findings. Barbieri et al. (2009) show that results vary depending on how researchers handle missing data in their analyses. Dorussen (2006) argues that “what you trade matters,” showing that conflict affects some sectors more than others and calling into question studies using aggregate trade data.

  3. 3.

    Those who argue that conflict disrupts trade include Anderton and Carter (2001) and Oneal et al. (2003). Barbieri and Levy (2001) directly challenge the latter, claiming that there is no systematic relationship between war and trade.

  4. 4.

    See for example, Gowa and Mansfield (2004); Long (2003); and Long and Leads (2006).

  5. 5.

    See for example, Hoadley and Yang (2007) and Sheng (2003).

  6. 6.

    For a useful discussion and comparison of traditional and human security see Tow and Trood (2000).

  7. 7.

    For critiques, see for example, Paris (2001).

  8. 8.

    See also the chapter by Yamada in this volume.

  9. 9.

    This idea is explicit in the strategy of the ASEAN Regional Forum, which outlines a three-stage process: (1) promotion of confidence building; (2) development of preventive diplomacy; and (3) elaboration of approaches to conflict.

  10. 10.

    See for example, Mansfield and Milner (1999, 592), who recognize the problematic nature of the term “regionalism” but then proceed to use this term in their analysis. An earlier version of the analytical distinction in this section was first developed in Aggarwal (2001).

  11. 11.

    This usage differs from that of Yarbrough and Yarbrough (1987), which conflates third party enforcement with these terms so that “bilateral” for them can also mean three countries, a highly counterintuitive use. Keohane (1990) refers to an agreement among three or more states as multilateralism. Richardson (1987) is consistent with our usage.

  12. 12.

    Of these, the dimension of geographical scope is the most controversial. It is worth noting that this category is quite subjective, since simple distance is hardly the only relevant factor in defining a “geographic region.” Despite the interest that regionalism has attracted, the question of how to define a region remains highly contested. See the discussion by Aggarwal and Fogarty (2004); Katzenstein (1997); and Mansfield and Milner (1999), among others.

  13. 13.

    The term “interregionalism” can itself be broken down into more specific types, based on the prevalence of PTAs and/or customs unions as constitutive units within interregional agreements. Aggarwal and Fogarty (2004) refer to an agreement as “purely interregional” if it formally links free trade areas or customs unions, as in the case of EU-Mercosur. If a customs union negotiates with countries in different regions, but not with a customs union or free trade agreement, we refer to this as “hybrid interregionalism” (e.g., the Lomé Agreement). Finally, if an accord links countries across two regions where neither of the two negotiates as a grouping, then we refer to this as “transregionalism” (e.g., APEC).

  14. 14.

    For a detailed discussion, see Aggarwal (1998).

  15. 15.

    Of course, policymakers may not care if other states actually go along with the linkage, as long as it helps them domestically.

  16. 16.

    See Haas (1980) on substantive and tactical linkages. The discussion of linkages in this section builds on Aggarwal (1998).

  17. 17.

    See Aggarwal (2006) for a discussion of how these factors influence the origin and evolution of bilateral free trade agreements.

  18. 18.

    See Aggarwal (1985) for a discussion of the nesting of economic issues within a security context.

  19. 19.

    US Department of State Bulletin, 26 June 1953.

  20. 20.

    The role of norms in preventing sustained trade liberalization is the theme of Aggarwal and Chow (2010).

  21. 21.

    For a realist analysis focusing on balancing and bandwagoning in the case of ASEAN Plus Three, the East Asia Summit and ASEM, see Aggarwal (2009). For a focus on ASEAN, see Roy (2005).

  22. 22.

    On APEC’s formation, see Aggarwal and Morrison (1998) and Crone (1993), among others. On APEC and security, see Aggarwal and Kwei (2005) from which the following discussion draws.

  23. 23.

    The New York Times, 22 November 1993, A5.

  24. 24.

    For this debate, see Morrison and Pedrosa (2007).

  25. 25.

    This discussion on PTAs and security draws on Aggarwal and Koo (2007).

  26. 26.

    Author interviews with Singaporean officials, March 2009.

References

  • Aggarwal, Sonia. 2009. The proliferation of economic liberalization initiatives in East Asia. Unpublished manuscript, May, Claremont McKenna College, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K. 1985. Liberal protectionism: The international politics of organized textile trade. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K. 1998. Institutional designs for a complex world: Bargaining, linkages, and nesting. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K. 2001. Economics: International trade. In Managing a globalizing world: Lessons learned, ed. P.J. Simmons and C. Oudraat, 234–280. Washington, DC: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K. 2006. Bilateral trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific. In Bilateral trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal and Shujiro Urata. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K., and Charles Morrison. 1998. Asia-Pacific crossroads: Regime creation and the future of APEC. New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K., and Edward Fogarty, eds. 2004. EU trade strategies: Between globalism and regionalism. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K., and Elaine Kwei. 2005. Asia-Pacific economic cooperation (APEC): Transregionalism with a new cause? In Interregionalism and international relations: A stepping stone to global governance? ed. Jurgen Ruland, Heiner Hanggi, and Ralf Roloff, 67–84. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K., and Jonathan Chow. 2010. The perils of consensus: How ASEAN’s meta-regime undermines economic and environmental cooperation. Review of International Political Economy 17(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, Vinod K., and Min Gyo Koo, eds. 2007. Asia’s new institutional architecture: Evolving structures for managing trade, financial, and security relations. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amyx, Jennifer. 2008. Regional financial cooperation in East Asia since the Asian financial crisis. In Crisis as catalyst: Asia’s dynamic political economy, ed. T.J. Pempel, Andrew MacIntyre, and John Ravenhill. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderton, C.H., and J.R. Carter. 2001. The impact of war on trade: An interrupted time-series study. Journal of Peace Research 38(4): 445–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arase, David. 2010. Non-traditional security in China–ASEAN Cooperation: The institutionalization of regional security cooperation and the evolution of East Asian regionalism. Asian Survey 50(4): 808–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, K., and J.S. Levy. 2001. Does war impede trade? A response to Anderton & Carter. Journal of Peace Research 38(5): 619–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, K., O.M.G. Keshk et al. 2009. Trading data: Evaluating our assumptions and coding rules. Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(5): 471–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bearce, D.H., and E.O.N. Fisher. 2002. Economic geography, trade, and war. Journal of Conflict Resolution 46(3): 365–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, Erika. 2004. Human security and the crisis of public health in Malawi. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 25(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero-Anthony, Mely, Ralph Emmers, and Amitav Acharya, eds. 2006. Non-traditional security in Asia: Dilemmas in securitization. London: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capling, Ann. 2008. Preferential trade agreements as instruments of foreign policy: An Australia–Japan free trade agreement and its implications for the Asia Pacific region. The Pacific Review 21(1):27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, Olivier. 2009. The political economy of PTAs. In Bilateral and regional trade agreements: Commentary and analysis, ed. Simon Lester & Bryan Mercurio. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crone, Donald. 1993. Does hegemony matter? The reorganization of the pacific political economy. World Politics 45(4): 501–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curley, Melissa, and Siu-Lin Wong, eds. 2008. Security and migration in Asia: The dynamics of securitisation. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorussen, Han. 2006. Heterogeneous trade interests and conflict: What you trade matters. Journal of Conflict of Resolution 50(1): 87–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartzke, Eric, and Q. Li. 2003a. Measure for measure: Concept operationalization and the trade interdependence-conflict debate. Journal of Peace Research 40(5): 553–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartzke, Eric, and Q. Li. 2003b. All’s well that ends well: A reply to Oneal, Barbieri & Peters. Journal of Peace Research 40(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goenner, C.F. 2004. Uncertainty of the liberal peace. Journal of Peace Research 41(5): 589–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govella, Kristi. 2007. Non-traditional security: A panacea for Asian regional institutions? Berkeley APEC Study Center News 10(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowa, J., and E.D. Mansfield. 2004. Alliances, imperfect markets, and major-power trade. International Organization 58(4): 775–805.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan, Alan. 2001. Testimony on the condition of the financial markets. US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Sept. 20, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas. 1980. Why collaborate? Issue-linkage and international regimes. World Politics. 32(3) 357–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton, Emilie. 2005. Trading human rights: How preferential trade agreements influence government repression. International Organization 59(3):593–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgott, Richard. 2004. After neoliberal globalization: the “securitization” of US Foreign Economic Policy in East Asia. Critical Asian Studies 36(3): 425–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, Stephen, and Jian Yang. 2007. China’s cross-regional FTA initiatives: Towards comprehensive national power. Pacific Affairs 80(2): 327–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iqbal, Zaryab. 2006. Health and human security: The public health impact of violent conflict. International Studies Quarterly 50(3): 631–649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungblut, B.M.E., and R.J. Stoll. 2002. The liberal peace and conflictive interactions: The onset of militarized interstate disputes, 1950–78. Journal of Peace Research 39(5): 527-546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahler, Miles. 2000. Legalization as strategy: The Asia-Pacific case. International Organization 54(3): 549-572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, Peter J. 1997. Introduction: Asian regionalism in contemporary perspective. In Network power: Japan and Asia, ed. Peter J. Katzenstein and Takashi Shiraishi. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert. 1990. Multilateralism: An agenda for research. International Journal 45:731–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keshk, O.M.G., B.M. Pollins, et al. 2004. Trade still follows the flag: The primacy of politics in a simultaneous model of interdependence and armed conflict. Journal of Politics 66(4): 1155–1179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H.M., and D.L. Rousseau. 2005. The classical liberals were half right (or half wrong): New tests of the 'liberal peace', 1960–88. Journal of Peace Research 42(5): 523–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Gary, and Christopher J.L. Murray (2001–2002) Rethinking human security. Political Science Quarterly 116 (4):585–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwei, Elaine. 2006. Chinese bilateralism: Politics still in command. In Bilateral trade arrangements in the Asia-Pacific: origins, evolution, and implications, ed. V. Aggarwal and S. Urata. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, A.G. 2003. Defense pacts and international trade. Journal of Peace Research 40(5): 537–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, A.G., and B.A. Leads. 2006. Trading for security: Military alliances and economic agreements. Journal of Peace Research 43(4): 433–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, Edward, and Helen Milner. 1999. The new wave of regionalism. International Organization 53(3): 589–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, Edward, and Jon Pevehouse. 2000. Trade blocs, trade flows, and international conflict. International Organization 54(4): 775–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maoz, Z. 2009. The effects of strategic and economic interdependence on international conflict across levels of analysis. American Journal of Political Science 53(1): 223–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matlary, Janne. 2006. When soft power turns hard: Is an EU strategic culture possible? Security Dialogue 37(1): 105–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazarr, Michael. 1995. North Korea and the bomb: A case study in nonproliferation. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Misra, Amalendu. 2001. Shanghai 5 and the emerging alliance in Central Asia: The closed society and its enemies. Central Asia Survey 20(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, Charles, and Eduardo Pedrosa, eds. 2007. An APEC trade agenda? The political economy of a free trade area of the Asia–Pacific. Singapore: ISEAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newland, Sara. 2007. The enemy of my enemy is my friend: Regional security complex theory and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Unpublished manuscript, May, University of California, Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberleitner, Gerd. 2005. Human security: A challenge to international law? Global Governance 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oneal, John R., Bruce Russett, et al. 2003. Causes of peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations, 1885–1992. International Studies Quarterly 47(3): 371–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pang, Eul-Soo. 2007. Embedding security into free trade: The case of the United States–Singapore free trade agreement. Contemporary Southeast Asia 29(1): 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, Roland. 2001. Human security: Paradigm shift or hot air? International Security 26(2): 87–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekkanen, Saadia, ed. Forthcoming. Asian designs: Interests, identities, and states in external institutions..

    Google Scholar 

  • Pempel, T.J. 2007. Northeast Asian economic integration: A region in flux. Asia–Pacific Review 14(2): 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pevehouse, Jon. 2004. Interdependence theory and the measurement of international conflict. Journal of Politics 66(1): 247–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, Kathy. 2004. Regional trade agreements as military alliances. International Interactions 30: 373–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, Kathy. 2006. Dispute initiation and alliance obligations in regional economic institutions. Journal of Peace Research 43(4): 453–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenhill, John. 2008. The move to preferential trade on the Western Pacific Rim: some initial conclusions. Australian Journal of International Affairs 62(2): 129–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. David. 1987. Comment. In US trade policy in a changing world economy, ed. Robert M. Stern. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, Dennis. 2005. Southeast Asia and China: Balancing or bandwagoning? Contemporary Southeast Asia 27(2): 305–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, David. 2005. China engages Asia: reshaping the regional order. International Security 29(3): 64–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheng, Lijun. 2003. China-ASEAN free trade area: Origins, developments and strategic motivations. ISEAS working paper: International politics & security issues series 1, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souva, M., and B. Prins. 2006. The liberal peace revisited: The role of democracy, dependence, and development in militarized interstate dispute initiation, 1950–1999. International Interactions 32(2): 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tow, William, and Russell Trood. 2000. Linkages between traditional and human security. In Asia’s emerging regional order: Reconciling traditional and human security, ed. W. Tow, R. Thakur, and I. Hyun. United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Development Programme. 1994. Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan, Ming. 2011. The domestic political economy of China’s preferential trade agreements. In Trade policy in the Asia–Pacific: The role of ideas, interests, and domestic institutions, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal and Seungjoo Lee. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M.D., R.M. Siverson, et al. 2007. Disputes, democracies, and dependencies: A reexamination of the Kantian peace. American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 583–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesley, Michael. 2008. The strategic effects of preferential trade agreements. Australian Journal of International Affairs 62(2): 214–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Gregory. 2005. Free trade as a strategic instrument in the war on terror?: The 2004 US–Moroccan free trade agreement. Middle East Journal 59(4): 597–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yahuda, M. 2005. Chinese dilemmas in thinking about regional security architecture. The Pacific Review 16(2): 189–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarbrough, Beth V., and Robert M. Yarbrough. 1987. Cooperation in the liberalization of international trade: After hegemony, what? International Organization 41(1)1–26.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA

    Vinod K. Aggarwal & Kristi Govella

Authors
  1. Vinod K. Aggarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristi Govella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinod K. Aggarwal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Berkeley Asia Pacific Economic, Cooperation Study Center (BASC), University of California, Barrows Hall 802, Berkeley, 94720-1970, California, USA

    Vinod K. Aggarwal

  2. , Department of Political Science, University of California, Barrows Hall 210, Berkeley, 94720, USA

    Kristi Govella

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aggarwal, V.K., Govella, K. (2013). The Trade-Security Nexus in the Asia-Pacific. In: Aggarwal, V., Govella, K. (eds) Linking Trade and Security. The Political Economy of the Asia Pacific, vol 1. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4765-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation