In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • US Middle East Economic Policy:The Use of Free Trade Areas in the War on Terrorism
  • Robert Looney (bio)

We will defeat [the terrorists] by expanding and encouraging world trade.

—President George W. Bush

This is a contest for the soul of Islam. Only Muslims will determine the outcome, but we can help.

—Robert Zoellick, former US Trade Representative

The events of 11 September made it painfully clear that the political, social, and economic problems of other countries have a direct impact on American national security. While the roots of terrorism are complex, it's safe to say that the United States was attacked by a criminal organization that in large part has had great success in recruiting new members in nations that offer young men little political voice and limited economic opportunity.1

Even before the smoke had settled from the 11 September attacks in New York and Washington, DC, US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick launched a series of speeches arguing that global trade liberalization was a central plank of the counteroffensive against terrorism. In a thoughtful essay, "Countering Terror with Trade," Zoellick's main premise was as follows:

America's trade leadership can build a coalition of countries. . . . Open markets are vital for developing nations, many of them fragile democracies that rely on the international economy to overcome poverty and create [End Page 102] opportunity; we need answers for those who ask for economic hope to counter internal threats to our common values. To address the relationship between trade agreements and other international objectives, the president has proposed that we build on openness and growth in developing countries with a toolbox of cooperative policies.2

As Alan Tonelson also notes, "Trade policy as antiterror weapon is an understandably appealing idea. It doesn't put American soldiers in harm's way. It is nonviolent, market friendly, and holds the promise of 'draining the swamp' where terrorists are assumed to thrive. And it doesn't require a line in the federal budget."3

This logic was compelling enough to ensure that a large section of the current National Security Strategy of the United States be devoted to the means of expanding US trade with developing countries.

A strong world economy enhances our national security by advancing prosperity and freedom in the rest of the world. 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 reinforces the habits of liberty.4

The use of trade as a weapon against terrorism is not without its critics. In question is the basic assumption that trade with the United States automatically provides workers in developing countries with rising incomes and standards of living. Some critics of the administration's trade policies go as far as to note that "shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration speculated that trade policy could help fight terrorism. The theory is good—but in practice, current trade policy is at best irrelevant to the terror campaign, and at worst working against it."5

Trade is not the only economic approach to be used by the United States in the war on terrorism. Foreign assistance is seen by many as superior to trade in contributing to the war on terrorism through its ability to win new allies by [End Page 103] focusing on humanitarian relief for refugees. It could be more tightly focused on eradicating poverty by facilitating higher rates of economic growth in key regional countries.

As with trade, however, aid has also had its share of critics. The testimony of Marc A. Miles before the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives paints a telling picture:

Experience has demonstrated that development assistance (i.e., government-to-government assistance intended to catalyze development in poor nations) is not a key factor in increasing economic growth in underdeveloped countries. On the contrary, development assistance has often proved to be counterproductive. Whether it is skimmed off by corruption, kept beyond the reach of poorer inhabitants due to regulations, or access is denied due to a lack of property rights or rigid...

pdf

Share