The role of the European Union at Securitization of Migrants in Refugee Crisis as of 2015

The role of the European Union at Securitization of Migrants in Refugee Crisis as of 2015

Abstract.

The study entails how migration has developed into becoming an issue of security and how the European Union incorporation has implications in it. Ever since the 1980s, political migration development continuously referred to the migration destabilizing impacts on domestic involvement and risks for societal order it inferred. The internal market spillover into internal security queries of European points at the local creations at the level of European. The Dublin Convention and Schengen agreement have depicted the restrictive development migration policy and migration social construction into questions of security. However, the occurrence of political processes of linking migration to terrorists and criminal abuses of the inside market does not occur in seclusion. It has been asserted to relate to a broader politicization where seekers of asylum and immigrants are depicted as an issue challenging the protection of welfare and identity of the nation being provided. Also, it is asserted that the securitization of immigrants is propelled by professional agencies, political agents, and political parties. Therefore, from the study, it is portrayed that the research aims at finding out the securitization at times of refugee crisis as well as the role of the European Union in the migration process. The European Union described 2015 to 2017 as the period of the refugee crisis and enforced various policies and practices embedded in the principles of humanitarian that the European Union followed.

Introduction.

Since the beginning of the refugee crisis, scrutiny was put on humanitarian rights and how the European Union protected and encouraged human resources. Refugee crisis lead started in Syria in 2011 after the protests against the political administration that formed part of demonstration wave in the Middle East. The demonstration was counteracted by the government of Syria, which resulted in the civil war that saw more than 4.8 million individuals fleeing their homeland and obtaining a refuge in other territories include Europe (Moreno‐Lax, 2018). It was in 2015 that the European Union received over a million applications of asylum that led them to term it as a refugee crisis within Europe. Due to geographical reasons, the majority of refugees entered the European Union from the Border States of Mediterranean, Greece, and Hungry as well as Italy (Colombo, 2018).

Hungary used all its means to lockout refugees that attempted to enter their territory to the extent of constructing an electric fence and police officers using tear gas to disperse the irregular immigrants. On the other hand, Germany welcomed and offered protection to the immigrants, and this leads to division in response to refugee immigrants among the European Union members’ states (Oltean & Iov, 2017). However, the European Union played its role in unifying the unit to inform rules and implement new systems in place. European Union made amendments to the process of asylum after CEAS failed to operate in the crisis. As a result of the EU keeping its institutions up to date, they held emergency meetings and tried to reach a standard policy that stabilized response and eased burden (Lazaridis, 2016).

In the European Union, the creation of standard migration policy is underpinned in the broader perspective of political, communal, and professional processes that reveals a society that is endangered. The welfare of western European states experiences an array of setbacks to its means of political and societal integration legitimacy such as economic globalization, poverty rise, racist revival, and weakening of cities’ living states, multiculturalism, and increased xenophobic movements. The settings have led to the presentation of migration as a danger to public order and stability of the labor market as well as a cultural identity. Despite the social development of movement being disputed as a security question, it emerges from powerful political and social dynamics that perceive it as a force endangering the wellbeing in societies of Europeans on the western side (Lazaridis, 2016).

The theory of securitization is depicted to assist in explaining how the utilization of exceptional methods becomes legitimized when there is a threat of security. The risks are, however, developed socially through framed speeches across the security threat. By perceiving the official language applied by the European Union at the time of crisis as well as changes in policy, it reveals how much security was framed, leading to undermining of human rights obligations. The refugee crisis is explained best in terms of sudden shifts resulting from migration.

In this study, it is essential to differentiate between an asylum seeker, migrant, and refugee. Migrant is defined as a person who leaves their home country to go and settle in another country as either legally or illegally and can return safely home. A refugee is someone who was owing to fear of lack of protection from his or her home country flee from the state and seeks protection from another peaceful country (Mountz & Hiemstra, 2014). On the other hand, an asylum seeker is defined as a person who applies for protection as a refugee under the convention of the United Nations and awaiting the determination of his or her application. Therefore, in this study, the term migrant is used to refer collectively to every individual crossing the borders to the European Union.  Many reasons cause individuals to flee their homes, such as volatile wars in the country that risks a person’s life, making them live in fear and panic; as a result, they decide to escape from their home (Fakhoury, 2016).

It is depicted that despite after the refugees have entered the European Union, their journey of unrest still continues as the conditions which they live in violates their human rights and affects the wellbeing. The Dublin regulation created the rules associating with how the application of asylum is processed such that its function was to develop an effective system by harmonizing regulations and policies covering procedures of applying for asylum (Campesi, 2011).

Research Objective.

To have a research process that exploits all the required aspects of the study, the following will be the research objectives:

1. To understand if the way European institutions approached the crisis of refugees reflected securitization of migration and as such if it undermined the rights of human responsibilities it had.
2. To understand the obligations of human rights towards refugees.

• To understand the emergency policies that were considered during a crisis of refugees and how they were securitized.

1. To understand various policy changes taken during the process of migration, such as quota system and European Union Turkey deal.

Two Research Questions only.

In this study, the two research questions will be:

1. How refugee immigrants are linked to social dangers representation, and how is typical migration policy formation a concern in making these connections?
2. How do cultural and socio-economical extents of migration governance feed into the immigrants’ securitization, seekers of asylum, and refugees in the European Union?

Literature Review

Development of Securitization Theory

The literature of securitization was created after a cold war at the time when queries regarding what constituted security and threats of security started to surface. In light of the closure of the cold war, it was required to re-examine the traditional security threats based on military conflicts. The theory of securitization started from the security studies of Copenhagen school as a puzzlement based on specific international security threats as put forward by Waever and Buzan. The school increased the literature on the issues of security while arguing that there was a requirement of a more comprehensive account of protection as the threats were no longer considered as the military. Therefore, the theory of securitization of Copenhagen school was recognized as a security approach that is multi-sectorial and socially constructivist (Jakesevic & Tatalovic, 2016).

The Copenhagen school securitization theory is surrounded by an issue that is central to its discussion, and it’s the question of what is security. By addressing security in terms of international relations, security is depicted as a survival of a nation or state and whether there are threats against the object of a referent. Perceiving security as survival, it reveals it’s threatening to the existence. Also, based on securitization, declaring an issue to be one of security is a choice that is political. Once it is made an issue of security, it becomes securitization, be it real or just perceived (Huysmans, 2006).

Securitization

The Copenhagen School approach

Copenhagen school played an essential role in securitization as it described the speech act. It is stated that once an issue has been created as a security issue, it becomes certain whether it is actual or not and once there is recognition of something as a threat to security, more extraordinary measures become put in place to defend against the danger that was created socially (Horsti, 2012). In the school of Copenhagen, before the issue was regarded as a socially constructed threat of security the following criteria were used: firstly, an actor claimed a referent object to be threatened, and the actor then demanded the right to using exemplary measures when dealing with the threat (Ceccorulli & Lucarelli, 2017). Lastly, the audience in communication with the actor acknowledges, justifies, and accepts the extraordinary measures to defend what is being threatened. Thus, it is asserted that giving something security label grants it to be a priority and leads to it having the authority of being right, which requires to be responded with urgency while ignoring the reasonable procedures and laws. Framing an issue to be of security results in a state of emergency (Watson, 2009).

Securitization is regarded as an inter-subjective process where there is continuous negotiation between the audience and the securitizing actor. The audience has the option of accepting or declining the agenda, which is being presented by the securitizing factor. Just like politics, security rests among subjects and not objects nor items. The audience is required to accept a threat before the actor employs special measures to calm the risk. Therefore, the school of Copenhagen checks at what the interaction is between securitizing actor and audience and how speech act is utilized to attain success. The school aims to gain progressively concise comprehension of who securitizes, for whom, on what basis, and why it is done under the specified conditions (Horsti, 2012). In the field of security, the power structure is set such that the elite actors declare what the security problem might be and produces policies that are used to defend threat, thereby providing protection and security. It is depicted that the approach of Copenhagen schools to securitization is negative, and the argument led to the downfall of democratic laws and principles. By proposing a de-securitization approach where issues are brought back to normalcy and removed from the emergency state, regular politics becomes of importance in governing and managing threats (Moreno‐Lax, 2018).

Sociological Approach

The theory of securitization was extended by the Paris School of security studies, whereby an argument emerged regarding security. It asserted that safety is always manifested by the handing over of the whole security fields to unease professionals who are assigned with managing the current consistent issues and recognizing new ones. Securitization implies the act of speech and actual practices that are reinforced through tools of policy (Neal, 2009). Discourses are intentionally used by states or organizations to attempt and focus on a specific image where the reflection depicts more on the organization’s motivation. Therefore, the sociological approach presents the ideology that an organization can, by its actions, commit securitization acts. If the targeted public perceives the work as being out of order, then the challenge by nature is required to be securitized (Trauner, 2016).

Securitization of Migration

In the European Union, migrants’ securitization was linked to migration Europeanization policies and expanded the Schengen area that increased security across the European Union Border States and developed fortress Europe. Securitization comprised of political unity through putting it in an environment that is hostile and stating responsibilities to free it from issues. Securitization is depicted to develop sixteen policies that result in them and us scenario, which the securitizing actor is accountable for protecting against any form of threat that emerges. Therefore, the development of barriers between us and others, solidarity issues, human rights, and ethics becomes minor security issues. Border control within the European Union is stronger due to deregulation that surrounds migration. However, the framework only works on creating migrants’ image being endangered and forming a threat to European societies and identities (Rogelj, 2017).

Generally, migrants’ legal status was not contested as they were needed, and their status in the country was regarded to be of least importance. The first securitization migration sign in the European Union was the fulfillment of council regulation of 1612/68 that created the national free movement rights of member states belonging to the EU, which differentiated between the country of EU and 3^rd country states. The representation of migration policies and security at the level of an institution contributed to the security policy tension being tied closely within the European Union migration policies. Frontex securitizing factors are such that as they deal with traditional threats of the military-like piracy and trafficking of drugs, they play an essential role in migration by securing European Union borders (Lazaridis & Wadia, 2015).

It is argued that returning migrants to their home country violates the principle of non-refoulment as the migrants will be returning to their potential torture and persecutions, which made them flee their homes. Treating migrants as irregular without acquiring their case is depicted to secure the European Union borders, unlike getting concerned with the abuses of human rights of potential refugees. Frontex performs various activities such as modern technology researches, training, and surveillance operations that advance its border states (Fakhoury, 2016). Military response has also been depicted via military drones that are deployed to improve security surveillance. In the case where the migration is constructed socially as a security threat by an actor of securitization, then it develops anxiety in the audience receiving the danger, which makes the security actors apply new tactics that contribute to settling of security threat. Securitization theory reveals the tension that exists between human rights and issues of security such that once the issue surpasses the reasonable and legal steps, it becomes a threat to individuals’ human rights (Szalai & Gőbl, 2015).

Research Methods

Securitization theory is originally rooted within aspects of speech act, which makes it necessary to research by looking at language discourse. The crisis of refugee was regarded as an occurrence when policies were accelerated and contributed to securitization move. The approach formed a qualitative analysis method that analyzed policy papers and European Union official documents that were released. However, there were restrictions and problems such that there was no actual meeting taking place, and the analysis was only made possible through the documents and press release. There was no accurate representation of what took place during the session, as some institutes decided on what to include in the public domain. The official document that was selected related explicitly to the migration area, mainly three policy areas of a quota system, sea operations, and European Union Turkey (Chouliaraki & Zaborowski, 2017).

The documents selected preferably provided the best general view of the language used by the European Union, and such have been chosen above other speeches and materials that are potential. The expression used in the European Institutes’ official statement was best analyzed using the securitization theory proposed by a school in Copenhagen. However, the Paris school was used for analyzing actual policy practices and activities. Paris school was used together with Copenhagen school as it aimed at expanding securitization theory from being only a speech act. The official statement and documents that were developed at the level of the European Union were analyzed based on discourse by concentrating on false, security, terrorist, solidarity, immigration, and European values (Afouxenidis et al., 2017).

Highlights were made on words that developed an image of them and us as well as identifying migrants as an issue to the European Union security. The contents of the official document from the European Union were assessed based on whether the EU acted based on safety as opposed to the rights of humans (Ehrkamp, 2017).

The quota system

One of the EU commission proposed the imposition of the quota system on each state of the EU to allow a fair distribution of 120000 refugees among all the MS. Those refugees were to be relocated from their current area of residents like Hungary, Italy, and Greece. In 2015 May 13^th, the commission of European highlighted its migration agenda, where they pointed out measures to be considered to respond positively and faster to the crisis of refugee and migration. The commission outlined a relocation scheme as its permanent measures, which were voted against by nations like Romania, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Hungary pulled out from the relocation scheme, which forced sudden pressure on another state that supported the relocation process. To support the program, funds were allocated and distributed to the relevant system (Trauner, 2016).

Language Analysis

The language analysis used by commission depicted a mix regarding the foundation of human rights and securitizing security language and wording of emergency.  Official documents aimed at making the border secure, triggering emergency response systems, showing solidarity, and accomplishing schemes within a limited time frame. There exist an agenda of securitizing where the tension between providing protection to those in dire protection needs and stating clearly circumstances that are exceptional and framed against human rights backdrops.

Policy Analysis

Despite the majority of European Union MS accepting the proposal, the success of the quota system remained disputed. Most of the asylum seekers were still depicted to behold in conditions that are inhumane as they wait for their application to be processed. Many organizations of human rights have continuously criticized Greece and Italy conditions, which result in framing the policy used as one of the security threats. It is portrayed that the existing procedures were quickly executed without thinking thoroughly there future implications, which makes it challenging to achieve its sole meaning. Also, the scheme of relocation was developed to ease the difficulties experienced by some states, but it failed to occur. The analysis of discourse used terms that that did not refer migrants as a threat. Still, instead, it insisted on using measures that are exceptional to fight against migration that is illegal while expressing solidarity. Some researches stated the importance of protecting through the exclusion of others and developing rules around exceptions like it was performed by agreement of Schengen. European values protection improves the requisite to securitize migration that is embedded as human rights (Vermeulen, 2018).

The Agreement of EU-Turkey

The agreement was to be concluded on 18^th March 2016 once the EU agree to revive dialogues about the membership of Turkey to the European Council of 2016. The European committee developed the agreement to end the irregular immigration from Turkey into the European Union, where migrants would cross Turkey to the Island of Greek. However, the EU was entitled to resettling refugees who were returned from Turkey. Turkey never agreed to any of the agreements that it was proposed, and in return, it made matters complicated and worse for refugees and the EU as it devised new routes and ways of blocking refugees from entering its territory (Afouxenidis et al., 2017). Therefore, Turkey returning all irregular migrants resulted in being a securitizing issue. As a result, the European Union was required to go beyond the standard policies and to legitimize extraordinary measures. When words such as restore were used, it suggested how things had fallen out of order and become a security threat that requires measures for control. It was the duty of the European Union to take necessary actions that would prevent new land and sea routes created for migration that was illegal by Turkey (Lazaridis & Wadia, 2015).

The EU was determined at preventing individuals who enter it and not protecting those people that fled persecution as well as giving routes that are safer for their access to the EU; as a result, it led to a discussion of human rights’ protection. Also, migration securitization was around the success of barring an individual from getting into the European Union as it made the border stronger. Analyzing the policy depicts that the deal of EU-Turkey was only meant to soothe the audience rather than protecting the migrants who submitted their application to the EU as asylum seekers. Due to the crisis of migration, criticism of the EU emerged due to money offered to Turkey to improve their conditions of refugee being futile. Also, the framework used was regarded as being discriminatory as its application was only available to refugees in Syria and no other nations. The deal of EU-Turkey violated the rights of humans that the European Union tried as much as possible to put in order, which resulted in increased border security. However, in the case where the EU does so much to protect itself and put agreements that discriminate against other refugees from some countries like Syria, then it depicts to be operating in means that resemble the theory of securitization.

Sea Operations

The Frontex organization of the European Union handles and remains accountable for any operations of the European Union at sea. The organization was established in 2004 under council regulation. Before Frontex was established the centers on border control oversaw the significant projects of the EU that were related to workings of border management. Frontex was chiefly created to improve the working conditions and procedures at sea, and its operation relied on the rules established by the fundamental rights charter of the EU. Frontex has an independent consultative forum that provides advice to both the executive directors and board of management, thereby promoting human rights. The primary role of the Frontex organization is coordinating and organizing sea operations like Poseidon and Triton (Neal, 2009).

EU sea operations have been under scrutiny by groups of human rights, which have resulted in criticizing Frontex as an organization that overlooked its obligation based on the global law and concentrating a lot of operations at the border. Reports revealed that Triton’s service had no sufficient resources that would aid in performing rescue operations and search. Also, the activities were criticized because after rescuing migrants, they transported them to Greece, which had an inhumane living environment, and as such, it violated human rights (Ehrkamp, 2017).

Limitations

In the research, there exist three distinctive limitations that are normative, theoretical, and methodological. It is depicted that scholars developed the theory of securitization and included practices as tools of securitizing. A methodological restriction is such that variation in critical discourse analysis and language analysis, as well as their aim, has led to the creation of best methods that evaluate refugee influx securitization in Europe and implementation of immigrants’ human rights (Moreno‐Lax, 2018). The major criticism of securitization theory is such that it does not contain a robust procedural framework, and its procedure constituting the success of securitization is undefined. Also, scholars have been depicted to contest de-securitization, which is considered as an ultimate aim as they perceive that positioning a challenge around the threat of security can cause outcomes that is positive based on procedures (Fakhoury, 2016).

Conclusion.

The study aimed at researching the two research questions, which are: How refugee immigrants are linked to social dangers representation, and how is typical migration policy formation a concern in making these connections? And how do cultural and socio-economical extents of migration governance feed into the immigrants’ securitization, seekers of asylum, and refugees in the European Union? Since the crisis of refugees begun, there have been three policies that have guided the EU role in securitization theory. It is depicted that policy language did not refer to migrants as terrorists or threats linked to danger. Still, the EU used the speech to develop community image within their organization. Such words used included strengthening, solidarity, and togetherness. Also, it is portrayed that the European valued others by expanding borders that prevented migrants from entering the European Union, which resulted in the securitization of migration at the time of the refugee crisis. By protecting others against the threat it resulted in need of addressing security issues. The EU frames its policy far from threats or anything that seems to put individuals in danger and promotes fundamental rights as well as protecting the afflicted ones.

Furthermore, it is depicted that the EU protects the humanitarian values, which make it to frame policies that revolve around it. In the policy area analysis, the crisis of refugees has been depicted to continue, and the EU has placed it in the security area and reinforced stronger external borders and the protection of human rights.

Bibliography

Afouxenidis, A., Petrou, M., Kandylis, G., Tramountanis, A., & Giannaki, D. (2017). Dealing with a humanitarian crisis: refugees on the eastern EU border of the Island of Lesvos. Journal of Applied Security Research, 12(1), 7-39.

Campesi, G. (2011). The Arab Spring and the crisis of the European border regime: manufacturing emergency in the Lampedusa crisis.

Ceccorulli, M., & Lucarelli, S. (2017). Migration and the EU global strategy: Narratives and Dilemmas. The International Spectator, 52(3), 83-102.

Chouliaraki, L., & Zaborowski, R. (2017). Voice and community in the 2015 refugee crisis: A content analysis of news coverage in eight European countries. International Communication Gazette, 79(6-7), 613-635.

Colombo, M. (2018). The representation of the “European refugee crisis” in Italy: Domopolitics, securitization, and humanitarian communication in political and media discourses. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 16(1-2), 161-178.

Ehrkamp, P. (2017). Geographies of migration I: Refugees. Progress in Human Geography, 41(6), 813-822.

Fakhoury, T. (2016). Securitizing Migration: The European Union in the context of the post-2011 Arab upheavals. The International Spectator, 51(4), 67-79.

Fakhoury, T. (2016). Tangled Connections between Migration and Security in the Wake of the Arab Uprisings: A European Perspective. Istituto Affari Internazionali.

Horsti, K. (2012). Humanitarian discourse legitimating migration control: FRONTEX public communication. In Migrations: interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 297-308). Springer, Vienna.

Huysmans, J. (2006). The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration, and asylum in the EU. Routledge.

Jakesevic, R., & Tatalovic, S. (2016). Securitization (and de-securitization) of the European refugee crisis: Croatia in the regional context. Teorija in praksa, 53(5), 1246.

Lazaridis, G. (2016). Security, insecurity, and migration in Europe. Routledge.

Lazaridis, G., & Wadia, K. (Eds.). (2015). The Securitisation of Migration in the EU: Debates since 9/11. Springer.

Moreno‐Lax, V. (2018). The EU Humanitarian Border and the Securitization of Human Rights: The ‘Rescue‐Through‐Interdiction/Rescue‐Without‐Protection’Paradigm. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1), 119-140.

Mountz, A., & Hiemstra, N. (2014). Chaos and crisis: Dissecting the spatiotemporal logics of contemporary migrations and state practices. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(2), 382-390.

Neal, A. W. (2009). Securitization and risk at the EU border: The origins of FRONTEX. JCMS: Journal of common market studies, 47(2), 333-356.

Oltean, P., & Iov, C. A. (2017). EU-Turkey Negotiations in the Context of Securitizing Migration after the 2015 Refugee Crisis: Joint Action Plan and the Readmission Agreement. Res. & Sci. Today, 13, 101.

Rogelj, B. (2017). The Changing Spatiality of the “European Refugee/Migrant Crisis.” Migracijske i etničke teme, (2), 191-219.

Szalai, A., & Gőbl, G. (2015). Securitizing migration in contemporary Hungary. CEU Center for EU Enlargement Studies Working Paper.

Trauner, F. (2016). Asylum policy: the EU’s ‘crises’ and the looming policy regime failure. Journal of European Integration, 38(3), 311-325.

Vermeulen, G. (2018). The securitization of migration during the refugee crisis: The role of the EU institutes (Master’s thesis).

Watson, S. D. (2009). The securitization of humanitarian migration: Digging moats and sinking boats. Routledge.