Journalists who describe China’s influence in Bangladesh, or frame China and India at odds in the country, often participate in what intern...
Journalists who describe China’s influence in Bangladesh, or frame China and India at odds in the country, often participate in what international relations scholars call “securitisation”.
Securitisation describes a process where stakeholders – typically in government, but also third-parties, in consultancies, think tanks, or the media – construct threats socially.
It’s an important distinction because it shows that threats are not necessarily objective. Stakeholders can, and do, play a role in defining what constitutes a threat.
The process begins when stakeholders identify a political, or economic, interest that they believe has been threatened. They then advocate extraordinary, or even rule-breaking, “counter” measures. Their audience can then either reject the construction, or accept it, which closes the loop.
If successful, the non-security issue becomes re-interpreted as a matter of survival.
Stakeholders can use the process for both altruistic and selfish purposes.
At best, stakeholders securitise the environment to generate resources and urgency against climate change. At worst, stakeholders securitise migration to instill fear and racism against immigrants.
The concept helps show how normal economic activities – a trade concession, development loans, or contractors – can become security threats – an effort to compromise a government or market.
What is less clear is why stakeholders are trying to securitise Bangladesh’s economic relations.
Public discourse on Bangladesh doesn’t reflect much more than...
