| In recent history, particularly over the last decade, the US-Canada border has been increasingly treated as a security issue. During this period, policies and measures have been put in place, such as strict identification documentation requirements, advanced surveillance equipment, information-sharing between law-enforcement and intelligence agencies on both sides of the border, and greater numbers of border patrol agents. These measures represent a significant departure from what was previously understood as a permeable, "undefended" border that prioritized above all else the facilitation of trade and travel. In my study, I have sought to better understand the process by which the US-Canada border is becoming understood by some as a security issue.;Based on the CoS's emphasis on the discursive element of the securitization process, I have asked: how is the US-Canada border being securitized in American political discourse? I have conducted a discourse analysis of statements made by President George W. Bush and the Department of Homeland Security within the period beginning with the signing of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in December, 2004 and ending with the signing of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in June 2005. I have sought to understand how these speakers participate in the securitization of the US-Canada border, analyzing the discursive tools they have adopted, the contexts within which they speak, and the way they structure their claims.;The results of my analysis have led me to conclude that, first, the securitization process as a whole must not be understood as a singular speaker performing a singular speech-act in a singular moment accepted by a singular audience, but rather as the on-going interaction between varying relevant actors who participate in creating momentum or resistance within an issue's securitization. Secondly, I conclude that within the securitization of the US-Canada border, the two speakers included in this research participate in the perpetuation of the process through both what is said -- primarily the identification of the terrorist threat, but also the inclusion of borders in larger, existing security contexts -- and what is not said -- the absence of details and definitions, as well as the choices made by the speakers in terms of the types of evidence provided. Taken together, these findings illustrate the importance of considering a more complex understanding of the securitization process and create an opportunity for an expanded research project that will include an analysis of activities performed by a wide range of actors.;Participants in critical security studies argue that issues, such as borders, become security matters through a process. The Copenhagen School (CoS) argues that this process, called securitization, occurs when a speaker performs a discursive action, "speech-act," claiming that the issue constitutes a security matter, and is successful when the relevant audience accepts this claim, thus legitimating the use of exceptional measures as a response. (Buzan, de Wilde and Waever, 1998) While I argue that this is an oversimplified interpretation of the process, I use this theory as a point of departure for my research and attempt to use my case study to illustrate the merits of a more comprehensive understanding of securitization. |
