This analysis summarizes and reflects on the following research: Kinacioglu, M. (2023). Militarized governance of migration in the Mediterranean. International Affairs, 99(6), 2423-2441.
Talking Points
In the context of maritime migration in the Mediterranean region:
- Migration has been framed as a hybrid threat by the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), giving way to the militarization of the Mediterranean Sea to address the influx of migrants into the region.
- Migration is connected to issues like terrorism and crime, providing further justification for a military response and operational mandates that permit offensive use of force.
- The securitization and militarization of migration privileges Europe’s perceived need for safety from migrants over the humanitarian needs and legal rights of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.
Key Insight for Informing Practice
- We must take seriously the possibility that the incoming Trump Administration could carry out its promise to deploy the United States military to carry out a mass deportation of migrants in the U.S., consider the implications of such an action, and strategize about how we might create an alternative, civilian-led response to migration grounded in peacebuilding and humanitarianism.
Summary
In the past decade, the influx of migrants traveling on boats across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe has produced new security challenges. Maritime migration has become exceptionally dangerous for migrants because of the risk of vessels sinking and “deliberate acts of neglect by [European] coastguards” and other European security actors. Maritime migration is further complicated by the lack of state sovereignty over international waters, where no country can claim control or be made responsible for protecting migrants’ rights. The need for new regulation or governance protocols to address the emergent context is met with increased securitization and militarization of the region, as well as the privileging of Europe’s perceived need for safety from migrants over the humanitarian needs and legal rights of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.
In this article, Muge Kinacioglu examines how migration is framed as a hybrid threat by European security agencies—entities within the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—enabling the use of militaries to address maritime migration. Kinacioglu also problematizes the term “hybrid threat” by pointing out the ways that framing denies legal protections and safety for migrants while “provid[ing] legitimacy for military operations and eliminat[ing] accountability for infringement of the human rights of migrants and refugees.”
| Securitization: | The process by which “actors (including leaders, governments and international organizations) can nudge or move activities and issues from the category of low politics (i.e. economic and social affairs) to high politics (i.e. national security).” There are two schools of thought on securitization and this article incorporates both to assert that “security [is] a product of discourse and practices that mutually interact and generate a process of securitization.” |
| Hybrid threat: | “a wide variety of existing adverse circumstances and actions, such as terrorism, migration, piracy, corruption, ethnic conflict, and so forth.” |
(Aaronson, M., et al. (2011). NATO countering the hybrid threat. PRISM, 2(4) ,https://cco.ndu.edu/Portals/96/Documents/prism/prism_2-4/prism_volume_2_issue_4.pdf.)
The hybrid threat framing is conceptually vague, creating space for political elites to securitize “any civilian issue or crime concerning societies.” NATO strategic command documents started to frame migration as a hybrid threat in 2012, in connection with human trafficking. Later, in 2016, the EU global strategy documents associated migration with policies concerning terrorism and organized crime. The framing of migration in terms of terrorism and crime, on the part of both NATO and the EU, created the opportunity for a military approach to counter the inflows of migrants from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Subsequent joint strategy documents and speeches by high-level politicians and officials in the EU and NATO “built the foundation for the legitimacy of the use of militaries to counter migration, which in turn has institutionalized and perpetuated criminalization and dehumanization of migrants.”
Several EU and NATO military operations on the Mediterranean have occurred in the past decade with wide-reaching mandates that include a range of surveillance, intelligence-gathering, capacity-building, and counterterrorism activities. The author focuses on several examples—including, Operation Sophia, Operation Sea Guardian, and Operation Irini—to spell out how these militarized approaches have stripped migrants of their humanity and legal rights. Many of these mandates explicitly link the issue of migration to issues of terrorism and crime and permit the use of offensive force on suspect vessels crossing the Mediterranean. As a result, many migrants and refugees “have faced arbitrary detentions, violence and mistreatment throughout the process,” in addition to continuous violations of migrants’ international human rights to protection and mobility. This militarized approach has also resulted in the weaponization of migrants by transit states (like Turkey, Niger, or Mali) that “threat[en] the EU with a refugee assault and use[] the ‘refugees’ as leverage over the EU” to “achieve economic benefits, financial advantage and political gain[.]”
The author draws a distinction between maritime migration and other pathways for migration, noting that migrants over land benefit from traveling through sovereign countries that have clearly defined obligations to protect their rights. The lack of clear jurisdiction over international waters has turned “maritime geographies…into spaces of projection of force by military actors to provide security for given societies, while creating insecurities for a group of people with no distinction.” Instead, the author calls for a normative framework grounded by international humanitarian law, transparency, and accountability wherein the “elimination of the use of military assets” could bring about a “more effective, norm-based [approach to] migration governance by law-enforcement agencies.”
Informing Practice
The fears that have helped constitute migration as a national security threat have given rise to far-right politics and leaders in Europe. We are witnessing the same dynamic toward far-right politics in the U.S., as well as a stronger, more popular embrace of a militarized approach toward migration. Throughout his campaign, Trump made clear his intentions to mass deport millions of undocumented immigrants and to deploy the military to do so. It is an extreme proposal—and one that may not be feasible to execute, according to some commentators, who point to Trump’s empty promises to build a wall at the U.S. southern border during his previous administration. However, this new Trump administration is taking power with many fewer guardrails and checks to executive power than before. Those of us committed to securing a more peaceful, just, and sustainable world must take seriously the likelihood that this proposal to deploy the military in a mass deportation effort may come to fruition and, importantly, begin work towards the development of an alternative.
What are the implications of a mass deportation effort orchestrated by the military? This effort would target an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S. and an additional 2.3 million people released from the Department of Homeland Security between 2023 and 2024. This report on mass deportation from the American Immigration Council spells out some financial and social implications:
- “Deporting one million immigrants per year would incur an annual cost of $88 billion, with the majority of that cost going towards building detention camps,” with an estimated 10-year cost of $967.9 billion.
- “Mass deportation would exacerbate the U.S. labor shortage” and affect “several key U.S. industries that rely heavily on undocumented workers,” like construction, agriculture, or household cleaning.
- “Mass deportation would deprive federal, state, and local governments of billions in local tax contributions from undocumented households.”
- “Mass deportations would lead to a loss of 4.2 percent to 6.8 percent of annual U.S. GDP.”
- One in every 20 residents of California, Texas, and Florida would be deported.
This report also notes that these financial impact numbers “do not even come close to capturing the human cost of mass deportation [considering that] about 5.1 million U.S. citizen children live with an undocumented family member.” The tremendous emotional impact of separating families is cruel and tragic.
There are additional political consequences that could arise from the U.S. military being deployed on U.S. soil targeting a civilian population—massive opportunities for violations of human and legal rights, accidental apprehension and detainment, and use of force violations against civilians. It harkens back to some the darkest moments of U.S. history (Japanese internment, for example) and world history (the rise of far-right fascism in Europe before WWII, particularly the Endlosung or Final Solution).
In addition to critiquing a thoroughly militarized approach to migration in the U.S., we should also clearly articulate an alternative. What does a humanitarian, peacebuilding-informed, civilian-led migration policy look like?
First, a total rejection of dehumanizing language—migrants are not “animals” or “criminals.” They are fellow humans either fleeing a bad situation or drawn by the desire for a better a life (or both).
Second, centering the humanitarian and protection needs of migrants, while interrogating claims that suggest migrants, as a whole group, represent a risk to national security. Imagine how policies would change if the priority was protecting and supporting people experiencing harm. Hot meals, temporary shelter, and clean clothes are more cost-effective and humane than bullets, barbed wire, and guns.
Third, prioritizing cooperation and diplomacy with neighboring states, regional governance organizations like the Organization of American States, and migrants or migrant-led organizations to co-development immediate and long-term responses.
Lastly, there is a need for a deep understanding and acknowledgment of the drivers of migration from the “Global South” to the “Global North”: structural violence, war, crime, historical legacies of colonization or foreign military intervention, global economic inequity, and, importantly, climate change. This understanding points to a comprehensive foreign and domestic policy strategy to address inequity and violence on a global scale as a long-term approach.
The build-up towards a heavily militarized approach to migration in the U.S. developed over the course of many years and, in all likelihood, the movement towards an alternative (as described above) will also take years to actualize. While there are still several pathways to prevent a military-led, mass deportation effort—critically, through urging Congress not to fund such an effort—there needs to be considerable effort now to strengthen the existing coalitions to bring about a more humane and peacebuilding-information U.S. migration policy. [KC]
Continued Reading and Watching
American Immigration Council. (2024, October). Mass deportation: Devastating costs to America, its budget and economy. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/mass-deportation
Garrone, M. (2023) lo Capitano. Archimede. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14225838/
Militaru, I. (2024). Votes, voices, and the Far Right. Peace Science Digest. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://warpreventioninitiative.org/peace-science-digest/votes-voices-and-the-far-right/
Vice News. (2021, December). No safe haven: The weaponization of migration. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAPdzH0_QhE
UNDP. (2020, October 21). Human mobility, shared opportunities: A review of the 2009 Human Development Report and the way ahead. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.undp.org/publications/human-mobility-shared-opportunities-review-2009-human-development-report-and-way-ahead
Peace Science Digest. (2020). Experiences of structural violence in the stories of undocumented Latinas in the U.S. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://warpreventioninitiative.org/peace-science-digest/experiences-of-structural-violence-in-the-stories-of-undocumented-latinas-in-the-u-s/
Hamid, M. (2017). Exit west. New York: Riverhead Books. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30688435-exit-west
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Cresent Societies. (2009). Policy on migration. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.ifrc.org/sites/default/files/Migration-Policy_EN.pdf
Garlick, M., & Michal, I. (n.d.). Human mobility, rights and international protection: Responding to the climate crisis. Forced Migration Review. Retrieved November 20, 2024, from https://www.fmreview.org/climate-crisis/garlick-michal/
Organizations
Refugees International: https://www.refugeesinternational.org/
Immigrant Defense Project: https://www.immigrantdefenseproject.org/
Grassroots Global Justice Alliance: https://ggjalliance.org/
American Immigration Council: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
Keywords: demilitarizing security, migration, immigration, Europe, United States, militarization
Photo credit: Sergei Gussev via Flickr
