National security concerns take precedent over any commitments in trade agreements. In response to the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the United States and other countries have been putting in place new anti-terrorist measures, many of which will act to inhibit international trade. As with any measure that inhibits international trade, “these new measures will provide an economic benefit to domestic vested interests in importing countries” (Smerconish, 2004).
Guarding against the possibility of terrorist acts is by nature a speculative activity, and it is difficult to refute the need for the anti-terrorist measures put in place by governments. As a result, trading partners may be frustrated by what they perceive as protectionist measures and tempted to reply with trade-restricting measures of their own, imposed under the guise of national security. Thus, governments have a vested interest in being willing to listen to the comments of their trading partners and ensuring that the policies put in place achieve their goal in the least-trade-distorting manner even if they are not obliged to do so.
It is particularly important that the measures put in place have either sunset clauses or automatic reviews pertaining to their efficacy in achieving anti-terrorist goals. These provisions will help ensure that those who benefit from the economic protection they provide do not capture anti-terrorist measures.
Three years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Americans are clambering to their feet like a dazed prizefighter put to the canvas. President Bush is asking Congress for “$36.8 billion in homeland security spending this year, up 10% from a year ago, to strengthen domestic safeguards that barely existed three years ago. That comes atop the administration's proposed 7% increase in defense spending to $401.7 billion” (Strasser, 2004). It is clear the convergence of money and fear is.....
