Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Linking Traditional and Non-Traditional Security in Bilateral Free Trade Agreements: The US Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Linking Trade and Security

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

Abstract

Although many commentators bemoan the politicization of trade negotiations over market opening, such efforts have always been used, at least in part, as instruments to promote state goals. This chapter focuses specifically on US efforts to link both traditional and non-traditional security issues to trade in their negotiation of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). Such accords have become increasingly common in the wake of the moribund Doha Development Round (DDA) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). With other countries pursuing such accords, particularly in Asia, understanding how countries engage in issue linkages to trade is particularly timely.

I would like to particularly thank Ren Yi Hooi and Alexander Newhall for their diligent research assistance. Sonia Aggarwal, Kathy Bowen, Michelle Chang, Lauren Dansey, Do-Hee Jeong, Cindy Li, Natalia Li, Robert Nelson, and Viola Tan also provided background assistance on this paper. I am indebted to Sara Newland and Stuart Chemtob for their valuable comments.

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.

    Although these agreements are sometimes referred to as preferential trade agreements, I use the more popularly used term of FTAs.

  2. 2.

    Feinberg (2006) focuses on the official US rationale for FTAs, namely: asymmetric market reciprocity, precedents for wider accords, rewarding market reformers, and strategic partnerships. My analysis specifies a larger set of factors and differentiates the driving forces further. Many of the factors discussed here are examined in Aggarwal (2006).

  3. 3.

    Political support for economic reforms could also partially fit under economic considerations.

  4. 4.

    See for example USTR’s Robert Zoellick’s rationale for the pursuit of FTAs in many public statements.

  5. 5.

    On the “securitization” of US trade policy, See Higgott (2004).

  6. 6.

    See Aggarwal (1985), Chap. 3 for a detailed discussion.

  7. 7.

    United Press International, 20 December 1983.

  8. 8.

    Journal of Commerce, 8 October 1987.

  9. 9.

    The Globe and Mail, November 11, 1985.

  10. 10.

    United Press International, December 20, 1983.

  11. 11.

    See Aggarwal (1994), Mayer (1998), Hufbauer and Schott (2002), Hufbauer and Goodrich (2004), and Cameron and Tomlin (2002).

  12. 12.

    Hafner-Burton (2009) uses the term “human rights” to refer to US linkage efforts on labor, but this terminology is misleading. In contrast to the EU, the US had never explicitly linked human rights to trade. Thus, although used as a vehicle to compare the US and European policy in her book, the term “human rights” as a way of describing linkages to labor standards creates conceptual difficulties.

  13. 13.

    See Vogel (1999) for an excellent analysis of these cases.

  14. 14.

    See Compa and Vogt (2001). The remainder of the paragraph draws on their discussion.

  15. 15.

    The review of facts in this paragraph draws on Vogel (1999) but not the interpretation of linkages.

  16. 16.

    See Vogel (1999).

  17. 17.

    Data cited in Abrami (2003). The following discussion of the Cambodian agreements draws on this case as well as Gresser (2010), Wells (2006), and Kolben (2007). The MFA, created in 1974, was the successor agreement to the Long Term Agreement on Cotton Textiles. It generally restricted import growth to 6 % a year (Aggarwal 1985).

  18. 18.

    See New York Times, 12 July 2001.

  19. 19.

    Cambodia was not a member of the WTO or the MFA.

  20. 20.

    See Wells (2006) for a thorough review of the mechanism and evaluation of the agreement’s success.

  21. 21.

    “Clinton Speech to ILO,” Inside US Trade, 17 June 1999. Available from http://insidetrade.com/WTO-Doc-Archive/Text-Document/clinton-speech-to-ilo/menu-id-618.html. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  22. 22.

    “Clinton Stresses Labor, Environment as Elements of WTO Agenda,” Inside US Trade, 15 October 1999. Available from http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-10/15/1999/clinton-stresses-labor-environment-as-elements-of-wto-agenda/menu-id-710.html. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  23. 23.

    “Transatlantic Consumer Organizations Call for a Cease-fire on Environment,” Inside US Trade, 21 October 1999. Available from http://insidetrade.com/WTO-Doc-Archive/Text-Document/transatlantic-consumer-organizations-call-for-a-cease-fire-on-environment/menu-id-618.html. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  24. 24.

    “Environmental Groups Respond to Announced US Position on Environment,” Inside US Trade, 10 August 1999. Available from http://insidetrade.com/WTO-Doc-Archive/Text-Document/environmental-groups-respond-to-announced-us-position-on-environment/menu-id-618.html. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  25. 25.

    “The Green Side of Protectionism: How Environmental Attitudes Shape Different Facets of Trade Policy Preferences,” ETH Zurich, 27 February 2011. Available from http://www.ib.ethz.ch/docs/currentpapers/Green_Determinant.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  26. 26.

    “House Democrats Letter to Clinton on Labor Rights in WTO,” 17 November 1999. Available from http://commercialdiplomacy.org/sample_documents/government/sd_gov_democrats.htm. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  27. 27.

    “Police Enforce a “No Protest Zone” around the WTO Meeting in Seattle and Arrest Hundreds of Demonstrators,” History Link, 1 December 1999. Available from http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&File_Id=2141. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  28. 28.

    See Bolle (2001) for a review of key issues in this agreement.

  29. 29.

    Quoted by Bolle (2001) from the USITC and analyzed by her.

  30. 30.

    “Zoellick Sees Alternatives to FTAA if Mercosur Fails to Move,” Inside US Trade, 2 February 2001. Available from http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-02/02/2001/zoellick-sees-alternatives-to-ftaa-if-mercosur-fails-to-move/menu-id-710.html. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  31. 31.

    “Draft Agriculture Letter,” Inside US Trade, 23 March 2001. Available from http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-03/23/2001/text-draft-agriculture-letter/menu-id-710.html. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  32. 32.

    “Labor Groups Criticize USTR Decision to Keep Benefits for Guatemala,” Inside US Trade, 8 June 2001. Available from <http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-06/08/2001/labor-groups-criticize-ustr-decision-to-keep-benefits-for-guatemala/menu-id-710.html>. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  33. 33.

    “White House Warned Against Tying Fast Track to Stimulus Package,” Inside US Trade, 21 September 2001. Available from <http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-09/21/2001/white-house-warned-against-tying-fast-track-to-stimulus-package/menu-id-710.html>. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  34. 34.

    “Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan,” The Federal Reserve Board, 20 September 2001. Available from <http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010920>. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  35. 35.

    “Trade Belongs in Our Diplomatic Tool Kit,” US Department of State, 16 October 2001. Available from <http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/22529.htm>. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  36. 36.

    “House Fast-Track Textile Votes Won by Limiting CBI Fabric Benefits,” Inside US Trade, 7 December 2001. Available from <http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-12/07/2001/house-fast-track-textile-votes-won-by-limiting-cbi-fabric-benefits/menu-id-710.html>. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  37. 37.

    This article provides a thorough analysis of the May 2007 outcome.

  38. 38.

    “House, Senate Democrats May Seek Andean Preference Extension,” Inside US Trade, 22 December 2006. Available from <http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-12/22/2006/house-senate-democrats-may-seek-andean-preference-extension/menu-id-710.html>. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  39. 39.

    “House Republicans Appoint Two New Ways and Means Members,” Inside US Trade, 5 January 2007. Available from <http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-U.S.-Trade-01/05/2007/house-republicans-appoint-two-new-ways-and-means-members/menu-id-710.html>. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  40. 40.

    “Congress, Administration Trade Deal,” Inside US Trade, 11 May 2007. Available from <http://insidetrade.com/Inside-US-Trade/Inside-US-Trade-05/11/2007/text-congress-administration-trade-deal/menu-id-710.html>. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  41. 41.

    “Peru & Panama FTA Changes,” Committee on Ways and Means, 10 May 2007. Available from <http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Media. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  42. 42.

    See Elliott (2007) for analysis of the implications of the 2007 accord as well as the Peru agreement.

  43. 43.

    See Well (2006) and Kolben (2007).

  44. 44.

    “Statement by US Trade Representative Ron Kirk on Presidential Signature of Trade Legislation,” Office of the United States Trade Representative, October 2011. Available from <http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/october/statement-us-trade-representative-ron-kirk-preside>. Accessed 25 April 2012.

  45. 45.

    See USTR website for more information on KORUS, Panama, and Colombia free trade agreements.

  46. 46.

    For a good overview of TPP, see Fergusson and Vaughn (2010) and for an analysis of the political dynamics, see Capling and Ravenhill (2012).

  47. 47.

    See also Hornbeck and Cooper (2010), 16.

  48. 48.

    “US Official Sees Progress in Early Days of TPP Round, Including on Labor,” Inside US Trade, 6 March 2012. Available from <http://insidetrade.com/201203062392243/WTO-Daily-News/Daily-News/us-official-sees-progress-in-early-days-of-tpp-round-including-on-labor/menu-id-948.html>. Accessed 23 April 2012.

  49. 49.

    “Outlines of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement,” Office of the United States Trade Representative, November 2011. Available from <http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/november/outlines-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement>. Accessed 23 April 2012.

  50. 50.

    “House Democrats, Environmental Leaders Urge Strong Environmental Chapter in Trans-Pacific Partnership,” United States House of Representatives, 7 June 2011. Available from <http://levin.house.gov/press-release/house-democrats-environmental-leaders-urge-strong-environmental-chapter-trans-pacific>. Accessed 23 April 2012.

References

  • Abrami, Regina. 2003. Worker rights and global trade: The U.S.–Cambodia bilateral textile trade agreement, Case 9-703-034. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    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. 1994. Comparing regional cooperation efforts in the Asia–Pacific and North America. In Pacific cooperation: Building economic and security regimes in the Asia Pacific region, ed. Andrew Mack and John Ravenhill, 40–65. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

    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, 3–26. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolle, M.J. 2001. US–Jordan free trade agreement. Congressional research service report for Congress, 25 Sept.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolle, M.J. 2003. Jordan–U.S. free trade agreement: Labor issues. Congressional research service report for Congress RS20968, updated 27 May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, Maxwell A., and Brian W. Tomlin. 2002. Making of NAFTA: How the deal was done. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capling, Ann, and John Ravenhill. 2012. Multilateralising regionalism: What role for the trans-Pacific partnership? Pacific Review 24(5):553–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnovitz, Steve. 1994. The NAFTA environmental side agreement: Implications for environmental cooperation, trade policy, and American treaty making. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 8(2): 257–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Compa, Lance, and Jeffrey S. Vogt. 2001. Labor rights in the generalized system of preferences: A 20-year review. Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal 22(2/3): 199–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, W.H. 2006. Free trade agreements: Impact on US trade and implications for US trade policy. Congressional research service report for Congress, updated Apr 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curzon, Gerard. 1966. Multilateral commercial diplomacy. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Destler, I.M. 2007. American trade politics in 2007: Building partisan compromise, Number PB07-5. Washington: Peterson Institute. www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/files.php/faculty/destler/PB%2007-5.pdf. Accessed 25 Apr 2012.

  • Elliott, Kimberly Ann. 2007. Appendix A in Destler, I.M. 2007. American trade politics in 2007: Building partisan compromise. Washington: Peterson Institute, Number PB07-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, Richard. 2006. U.S. trade arrangements in the Asia–Pacific. In Bilateral trade agreements in the Asia–Pacific, ed. Vinod K. Aggarwal and Shujiro Urata. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fergusson, Ian, and Bruce Vaughn. 2010. The trans-Pacific partnership agreement. Congressional research service report R40502, Nov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gresser, Edward. 2010. Labor and environment in trade since NAFTA: Activists have achieved less, and more, than they realize. Wake Forest Law Review 45(2): 491–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner-Burton, Emilie. 2009. Forced to be good: Why trade agreement boost human rights. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgott, Richard. 2004. After neoliberal globalization: the “securitization” of US foreign economic policy in East Asia. Critical Asian Studies 36(3): 425–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornbeck, J.F., and William H. Cooper. 2010. Trade promotion authority (TPA) and the role of Congress in trade policy. Congressional research service report for Congress, 4 Nov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufbauer, G.C., and B. Goodrich. 2004. Lessons from NAFTA. In Free trade agreements: US strategies and priorities, ed. Jeffrey Schott, 37–50. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufbauer, G.C., and J.J. Schott. 2002. North America labor under NAFTA. Institute for International Economics, Sept.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolben, Kevin. 2007. Integrative linkage: Combining public and private regulatory approaches in the design of trade and labor regimes. Harvard International Law Journal 48(1): 203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Meredith Kolsky. 2011. The trans-Pacific partnership: New paradigm or wolf in sheep’s clothing? Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 34(1): 27–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, F.W. 1998. Interpreting NAFTA: The science of art and political analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangel, Charles B. 2009. Moving forward: A new bipartisan trade policy that reflects American values. Harvard Law School Journal on Legislation 45(2): 377–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruebner, Joshua. 2001. U.S.–Jordan free trade agreement. Congressional research service report for Congress, 23 Jan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, Howard. 2004. Free trade agreements as foreign policy tools: The US–Israel and US–Jordan FTAs. In Free trade agreements: US strategies and priorities, ed. Jeffrey Schott. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, David. 1999. The politics of trade and environment in the United States. Working paper 94. Berkeley: Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, UC Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, Don. 2006. “Best practice” in the regulation of international labor standards: Lessons of the US–Cambodia textile agreement. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal 27(3): 357.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Berkeley, USA

    Vinod K. Aggarwal

Authors
  1. Vinod K. Aggarwal
    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. (2013). Linking Traditional and Non-Traditional Security in Bilateral Free Trade Agreements: The US Approach. 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_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation