Contemporary Challenges in International Relations

Kateryna Plaskonis, 19910209-T114

                               IR103E, Module 1: “Contemporary Challenges in International Relations”. Seminar 2

 

Background and description of the problem

While from many standpoints the present situation on Libya’s borders is connected to violation of human rights and humanitarian intervention, the prospect of large-scale migration as a result of the crisis in Libya is also perceived as a security issue in Europe. This perception has only sharpened since the statistics were published, as the first significant waves of Libyans and migrants working in Libya have now arrived in Lampedusa, Italy. Over 15,000 people, mainly Tunisians have reached the European mainland since the beginning of 2009. The reaction of the Italian Government was to temporarily suspend transferring migrants from Lampedusa to treatment centers across the state, and the European Union’s border management agency, Frontex, has prolonged its support to Italy’s coastguard and border authorities (Winfield 2011). At the same time, the neighboring countries, including Switzerland, have activated the movement of workforces and equipment to these borders to strengthen them and avoid the prospect of large-scale migration from North Africa. Italy stops the African boat migrants and asylum seekers from entering the mainland, fails to monitor them for refugee status or other vulnerabilities, and forcibly returns them to Libya, where many are treated inhumanly within humiliating conditions and/or abused.

The Human Rights Watch report "Pushed Back, Pushed Around: Italy's Forced Return of Boat Migrants and Asylum Seekers, Libya's Mistreatment of Migrants and Asylum Seekers," observes the management of migrants treatment in Libya through the lens of those who have managed to reach and stay on Italian land (2009). It also documents Italy's exercise of forbidding boats full of migrants on the high seas and pushing them back to Libya without the required screening. The occurring events led me to the following research question: How has the process of securitization of migration affected the case of Libya and the EU?

Analysis of the problem

The securitization of migrants and migration is not a new concept, since the German citizens resident in the UK were detained there during World War II period as they were perceived as potential ‘fifth columnists,’ while Kurds and Algerians were often seen as terrorists due to attacks in Western Europe during the 1970s and 1980s. But the perception of migration as a threat to national security has certainly intensified in last decades, “in part as the security agenda has become more prevalent across many aspects of policy, and in part in response to the rapid rise in the number of international migrants and especially of ‘irregular’ or ‘illegal’ migrants”(Erdogan 2009).

Theories as realism and liberalism will be used in my paper, since one emphasizes the role of states as the main actors on political agenda and the other one stresses the importance of individuals as the main unit of society. They are controversial enough in observing the role of states, organizations and individuals; therefore, can provide an extended understanding of the issue. Utilitarianism will be also used in order to see if the human rights violations can be seen as one of the possible effects of securitization of migration process.

However, before analyzing the issue and applying the theory, it is important to ask whereas immigration is a threat to international security. And if so, what measures were taken by the EU to securitize its borders.

Is immigration a real threat?

The foundation for an increasingly dominant style of international relations is situated in framing migration as an occurrence that rises out of resource lack and ethnic tensions that are arising out of a “social collapse” at the same time. This notion that host states and/or states which are threatened by flood of migrants, can socially rebuild “the regressive-migrant producing countries hearkens back to an imperialist worldview” (Ibrahim 2005:171). Labeling any issue a security threat provides substantial consequences in terms of the laws, norms, policies, and procedures that become justified in response. However, it is important to note that meanwhile other important and legally binding laws might be violated. Nowadays, there are a number of documents relating to the political and legal regulation of various aspects of immigration and the socio-economic and political status of immigrants in the host countries at the international level. They are both mandatory and recommendation character. In the migration framework, the label of security threat has been used to justify superior surveillance, imprisonment, deportation, and other more limiting policies. Such reactions can influence the migrants involved, like denying asylum seekers admission to enter safe countries, driving more migrants into the danger of migrant smugglers and human traffickers, and by contributing to a growing anti-immigrant trend among the host countries population, including media and political debates.

The question whether and if so when, migration actually represents a threat to international security. While uncertainly misleading insights to this question are dominant, stating that migration is a source of terrorists and criminals import, or spreading infectious diseases; they are nothing more, but nonetheless widespread. Firstly, most of the (European). states are not prone to attacks by any groups” (Smith 2010: 169) of terrorists; therefore there is a lack of will to join a major counter-terror campaign. Even though public health sector has been high lightened over last decades, there was no massive epidemics reported and/or connected to immigration flow. Secondly, attributing migrants with tainted purposes without confirmation of their validity creates supplementary stigmatization by the public. Thirdly, focusing only on the above mentioned risks distracts attention from circumstances, such as sovereignty, identity and human rights.

“Irregular migration, for example, can legitimately be viewed as undermining the exercise of state sovereignty, as any state has the right to control who crosses its borders and is resident on its territory”(Erdogan 2009). It is important to consider that most of irregular immigrants around the world have not crossed a border without agreement, but remain or work without authorization. The case of Libya is different, however: public awareness gets weaker, as the government fails to regulate and accomplish migration risks. It is clearly seen in how the boat immigrants are treated. Not only the conditions they are kept in are inhumane, but a growing number of migrant smuggling and human trafficking continue to rise and create a genuine threat to law and order, and creates an increasing tendency of human rights violations (inter.

The entrance of large numbers of migrants, sharing different social or cultural experiences than the receiving communities can also present serious challenges to social interconnection (Smith 2010:286). Not only it creates practical implications for states, including the distribution of resources, but more conceptual measures are taken regarding integration policy and the notion of national identity. Migrants provide a significant competition for natives within the labor market, particularly during periods of decline, and as a consequence become magnets for offence. In addition, “significant numbers of people are settled in a restricted area (refugee and IDP camps) for a long period of time, and have a detrimental effect on the local environment” (Erdogan 2009).

Theoretical framework

Realism states that “actors who do not have enough power to protect themselves risk dominance or outright destruction at the hand of stringer players” (Smith 2010:307). In other words, national frontrunners, head of states risk the existence of the state, unless minding this state of affairs. At the same time, the survived states are the ones to create international security policies, since they are influential enough to proclaim their wills. According to Ibrahim, the main securitization process should begin with governments and international organizations modifying the conditions within states that create refugees and illegal migrants and consequently how it results migrants to be “major humanitarian challenge and a threat to national and international security of states” (2005:171). The EU member states are constantly in process of achieving the strategic goals, in which both states and international organizations can change the pressure of push factors and thus the production of migrants; they seek for the solution on how to end the “social regression” of underdeveloped states. How did the EU contribute to the establishing peace in Libya? The EU has a long-lasting tradition of alternative position on security focusing on non-military conflict resolution ways, the primacy of international law and organizations, the promotion of democracy and human rights outside of its borders. “As fighting went on in Libya, the European Union has imposed sanctions against the Libyan leadership and will extend them this week” (European Commission 2011).In a spirit of solidarity, the member states are coordinating repatriation of their nationals and are running a joint border-control operation in Italy. For realism, state is the major actor and protecting its interests and/or maximizing them is the greatest purpose. Therefore, providing strict immigration policies and increasing the border security, as well as possible deportation of immigrants (regardless of their status) is the effect gained out of securitization of migration.

In comparison to that, liberalism views the world as “one where enlightened and self-disciplined humans are embedded in well-functioning democratic states” (Smith 2010:308). In order to achieve that, human rights are seen as one of the most important tools; therefore, labeling any issue as a security threat provides considerable imports in terms of the laws, norms, policies, and actions that become acceptable in response that also includes human rights.

  This notion that host states and/or states which are threatened by flood of migrants, can socially rebuild “the regressive-migrant producing countries hearkens back to an imperialist worldview” (Ibrahim 2005:171). However, it is important to note that meanwhile other important and legally binding laws might be violated. Nowadays, there are a number of documents relating to the political and legal regulation of various aspects of immigration and the socio-economic and political status of immigrants in the host countries at the international level. They are both mandatory and recommendation character. (UN News Center). In the migration framework, the label of security threat has been used to justify superior surveillance, imprisonment, deportation, and other more limiting policies. Such reactions can influence the migrants involved, like denying asylum seekers admission to enter safe countries, driving more migrants into the danger of migrant smugglers and human traffickers, and by contributing to a growing anti-immigrant trend among the host countries population, including media and political debates.

The advocates of utilitarian theory argue that an action is right if it maximizes the happiness among many people. Good was mostly defined in terms of well-being. The utilitarian theory has its own advantages and disadvantages. For instance, the utilitarian theory considers the well-being of the entire population, but not individuals. An action should be considered good if it benefits the whole population. States restrict their immigration policies by the number of reasons to secure the well-being of their population. Human rights are not emphasized enough, since they are mainly seen as the rights of individuals, and do not maximize the happiness of majority. The government should ratify policies that prevent illegal immigration in the country, for instance crimes, illegal drugs and other problems that present a major concern in the country and they affect everyone in the country in different ways etc. The measures will be considered good if they benefit everyone in the country. In order to solve the problem, the government should develop the right policies that promote happiness for all regardless of illegal immigrants in the country. However, the utilitarianism has some weak points. The theory relies on predicting the long term impact of an action and it is difficult to predict and fails to consider personal relationships (Hutchings 2010: 30-36)

Tentative answer to the research question

 

To amount the effects risen with securitization of migration within the EU/Libya case, realism, liberalism and utilitarian theory were chosen as the main theoretical approaches.

Through realist perspective, states will provide any possible policies to secure its borders, as seen in case of the EU and Libya. By increasing border security and creating harsh policies, the EU has different reasons to protect itself from the flow of people. These reasons include public health protection, identity protection, sovereignty and remaining the authority.

Liberalism and utilitarianism are more individual orientated; however, they are have different standpoints when justifying human rights violations. Liberalism seeks for a democratic society, where people possess all of the possible rights; while utilitarianism stresses the importance of majority. 

Conclusions

Analyzing the issue of securitization of migration and its consequences, the perspective of state security (in this case the EU) and human rights violations (boat immigrants) provided the following answers to the posted research question. Depending on the chosen theory (realism, liberalism and utilitarianism) human rights violation can be both justified and disapproved. It might be justified through utilitarian perspective as a way to maximize the satisfaction level of Italian government, the neighboring countries and the EU as whole; however, it excludes personal relationships or individual significance that consequently opens a ground for care ethics criticism. In contrast, it claims that moral development consists in becoming more sensitive to how care and compassion can be extended to the larger number of people and refined to accommodate different circumstances, rather than becoming more abstract and less caring. Instead of thinking of ethics in terms of impersonal, abstract moral principles, care ethics think in terms of personal moral responsibilities and conflicts that need to be resolved in order to maintain stable interpersonal relationships. Realism focuses on policies and decision making strategies to protect its borders from immigration flow, since the EU is concerned about various possible outcomes brought with immigration. Liberalism stresses the importance of individuals as one of the leading actors in society; therefore the issue of human rights remains one of the most important and human rights are the goal to reach.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

”Developments in Libya: An Overview of the EU's Response - 10/03/2011." European Commission. N.p., 19 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

Erdogan, Ibrahim. "Migration: As a Threat to Security?" The Journal of Turkish Weekly. N.p., 27 Feb. 2009. Web. 03 Mar. 2012.

Hutchings, Kimberley (2010), Global Ethics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ibrahim, Maggie (2005),”The Securitization of Migration: A Racial Discourse”,

International Migration Vol. 43 (5), 163-187.

"Pushed Back, Pushed Around Italy’s Forced Return of Boat Migrants and Asylum Seekers, Libya’s Mistreatment of Migrants and Asylum Seekers." Human Rights Watch | Defending Human Rights Worldwide. N.p., 21 Sept. 2009. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

Smith, Michael E. International Security: Politics, Policy, Prospects. Basingstoke, Hampshire [England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.

"THE FOUNDATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

Winfield, Nicole. "Italy Facing Immigration Emergency." The Seattle Times (2011): n. pag. Web. 14 Mar. 2013. <http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2014557339_aplibyarefugees.html>.