Security Crisis in the European Union

Security Crisis in the European Union: A Theoretical Analysis of “Irregular” Refugees

Natasha Boychenko, The Eurasia Center December 2017

A continuing crisis has overwhelmed the European Union. Syria, South Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Niger, Mali and Afghanistan are only a few among many countries that are sending hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring into Europe. Increasingly, the situations in these countries have become so dire, that the European Union and other international actors have been called upon to find refuge for the asylum seekers. Under refugee crisis on the official website of the European Union, is a graph registering the number of first time asylum applications in the EU at over 1,300,600 in 2015 (European Union, website). As resources are drained, the crisis is furthered by unregistered or “irregular” refugees flooding the EU countries. By comparing traditional and critical security lenses, we are able to understand the response of the European Union and its Member States, and present key solutions. This paper compares the security lenses used to analyze the European Union’s management of the crisis regarding irregular refugees.

Examining an issue through both traditional and critical security studies changes the unit(s) of analysis; who is being threatened and how. Traditional security studies encompass the three dominating branches of international, political theory; the two applicable ones being realist and liberalist theory. These share fundamental similarities, namely the organizing principle will always be a movement toward anarchy. Neo-realism’s founding father Kenneth Waltz described this as “the absence of a central monopoly of legitimate force” (Waltz, p. 102). Additionally, the unit of analysis is the State, leaning on the assumption that each is equal in sovereignty and rights to the other. Realism looks solely at the survival of the State; not morality, type of government, nor any external forces. Strength lies in capabilities, particularly those of the military. This presents a shallow stance, ignoring underlying reasons for issues in security.

In retrospect, the best traditional security lens to apply is that of liberalism; spearheaded by Immanuel Kant and John Locke. It picks up where realist theory left off, and encompasses a slew of other things yet to be analyzed. From social movements and businesses to international organizations, liberalist thought looks to diminish conflict through cooperation. This liberalist spirit is the type of thinking that first created the European Union (also called the EU in this paper). The EU exists as a regional and international organization with a massive importance in global politics. Its overarching reach encompasses roughly 28 Member States. Most have given up much of their national sovereignty, including their own currency, to be part of this organization. The push and pull between state autonomy and security is a key factor in assessing

2 in describing refugee problem facing each EU member state and each is colored by its national and ethnic identification.

First off, the EU has encompassed all external borders since 1985 with The Schengen Agreement. This treaty allowed for non-restricted travel within the EU, assuring “the gradual abolishment of the internal borders between countries and an extended control of the external borders” (Schengen Visa Information, Web). While each state kept its own boarders, it must allow free entry for all citizens of the European Union. Among other problems, this has made it much easier for refugees to travel throughout Europe after overstaying their protection visas. The EU is trying to fix these problems, adding clauses and new legislation to strengthen its external borders; “It establishes rules governing border control of persons crossing the external borders of the Member States of the European Union” (European Parliament, 2006). Still, border control is not the only problem EU members face when dealing with irregular refugees.

The true crisis hitting EU Member States is the stress of accommodating irregular refugees, when some countries can barely support the ones they have legally agreed to relocate. According to a proposal from the European Commission, “Member States have agreed for the first time to relocate 160,000 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other EU countries by September 2017” (European Union, Web). This arrangement, and others like it, inflicts huge strain to the countries, and the EU has received considerable backlash. Not surprisingly, some asylum seekers illegally cross into countries other than their assigned ones, to start their own camps. Briefly mentioning the “Brexit” and its reaction to the UK’s involvement, helps understand how some EU States want to harden their borders and reclaim some of their autonomy. Essentially, States feel threatened by the overwhelming number of refugees and some are choosing to retreat into themselves.

Thus far, the theory and explanations behind the refugee crisis has been approached strictly through a traditional security lens. Now, the perspective changes to analyze issues with critical security studies. Instead of a flat-out criticism of traditional security studies, this type of

3 international theory exists as an alternative. Something that broadens the common narrative of “security through military power” and extends it to a completely different unit of analysis. Like traditional, there are three schools of theory: the Welsh, the Copenhagen, and the Paris approach. These look at the fundamental details surrounding security issues to explain why they occur and how. Especially in human security studies which stems out of the Paris school of thought, the unit of analysis can be people.

When people are the unit, the concentration of security shifts from state interest to the refugees themselves. Thousands of refugees die on their journey to freedom, many due to the perilous routes taken by the smugglers. Per the European Commission, “In 2014, 276,113 migrants entered the EU irregularly, which represents an increase of 138% compared to the same period in 2013. To enter the EU clandestinely via land, air and sea routes, most migrants have recourse to criminal networks of smugglers” (European Commission, Web). The cartels are horrifying for people trying to escape their homeland, but for some, they are the only option.

The State should recognize the threatening role of the cartels, which are non-state entities. Not only do they change the migration patterns of the refugees, threatening the states, but they are directly responsible for mass loss of life over “3,000 dead in 2014” (European Commission, Web). When the cartels offer refugees passage from North Africa to Greece and Turkey, they usually go by boats that capsize easily. And once they get to Europe, they create illegal refugee camps, with result in despicable living situations. One lies in the French Port of Calais; known as the “Jungle”, “officially, about 7,000 migrants live in the camp - humanitarian groups say the number is closer to 10,000” (Campbell, Web). Many of these people are children, young unaccompanied teens who are trying to reach family in England or elsewhere. They were finally evacuated from the illegal camp by French security forces in October 2016.

It is crucial to realize that cartels are the main underlying problem of irregular refugees, which only critical security studies can evaluate; as non-states, they would not matter at all when looking through traditional security studies. Noting this, Weaver mentions that when

4 governments do relocate and integrate refugees “the conventional-critical approach of broadening the concept of security is likely to become locked into debate about whether for example, immigrants and refugees really do pose a security problem to the state. A discourse on society security might then be captured by neo-Nazis who argue “we are only defending our social security” (Weaver, 66). Part of this idea surrounding security is to foster an “Us against Them” mentality. This is one of the saddest things about it the crisis. The leading identity of the Welsh school is that if humans cannot have security, then nothing can truly be secure. Which although very vague and open to criticism, does have its merit; one of the most influential parts about critical security studies is its focus on security for the individual.

The dichotomy between the two lenses blurs the “right” way to address this issue. A liberalist lens gives more useful and practical information as an analytical tool. On the other hand, critical security studies work best for humanitarian efforts and future EU legislation. Both provide valuable evidence and solutions. Since it is the EU that currently deals with the crisis, and they will be using a traditional security studies framework for dealing with the issues. EU Member States are more concerned about state sovereignty, articulated by Realist thinker E. H. Carr, who prophesizes the “dangers” of too much cooperation (like within the EU), saying that a “sense in which its{states} interests are those of the community, since its well-being necessarily carries with it some measure of well-being for other members of the community, and its collapse would entail the collapse of the community as a whole (Carr, 86). Therefore, the liberalist lens becomes more important if only as an analytical tool. Also, through this lens, viable solutions to mitigating the crisis become available.

The first solution could come through deterrence options. These can be used to stop the huge influx of smuggled refugees, though they can be difficult to enforce. It’s passive/aggressive nature cannot provide a negative making success more difficult to measure. In this case, it would be difficult to prove the number of refugees who decided against migration. The other problem is that deterrent acts would have to last an indefinite duration, allowing the crisis to defuse itself.

5 Compliance on the other hand uses coercive strategies like sanctions. While an aggressive option, a compliance tactic offers a definite deadline, assuming it can be addressed within the EU. The Commission brings up humanitarian efforts too, which are just as important, “to save the lives of those in distress at sea, EU States' coastguards and naval services need to make major efforts, with assistance from the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders” (European Commission, Web). It sounds good, but the Commission does not give any details of when or how they will accomplish this.

Finally, cooperation within the region must continue. The EU website talked about creating partnerships with “countries that refugees and migrants come from to save lives, increase returns, enable migrants and refugees to stay closer to home and, in the long term, help the development of those countries in order to address the root causes of irregular migration” (European Union, Web). This brings up a good point. The idea of giving asylum assumes that one day these refugees will be able to safely return to their homes.

In conclusion, the European Union must add an amount of critical security studies to the traditional framework. Identifying threats to the State’s survival implies a realist approach to security, ignoring the fact that security is more than just a state’s issue. Security should be defined as an all-encompassing ideal, looking within the state at individual actors as well as external threats. States must recognize and identify non-state actors as practical threats, take the refugees into consideration, and continue co-operating within the international community. Security must be an all-encompassing ideal, fashioned to prevent outside threats and ultimately to save lives.

6 Bibliography

Kant, Immanuel. “Perpetual Peace”, SIS Course Reserves. Blackboard. 2017. Web.

Carr, E.H. “Realism and Idealism”, SIS Course Reserves. Blackboard. 2017. Web.

Paris, Roland. “Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?” International Security 2001. 26 (2): 87-102. SIS Course Reserves. Blackboard. 2017. Web.

Waltz, Kenneth. “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory”, SIS Course Reserves. Blackboard. 2017. Web.

Weaver, Ole. “Securitization and De-securitization”. In On Security, ed. Ronnie D. Lipschutz. 1995.New York: Columbia University Press. SIS Course Reserves. Blackboard. 2017. Web.

Campbell, Ed Thomas & Ed. "The desperate children of the Calais Jungle." BBC News. BBC, 17 Oct. 2016. Web. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37654552

European Commission. "Irregular Migration & Return." Migration and Home Affairs . European Commission, 06 Dec. 2016. Web. https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/irregular-migration-return-policy_en

European Parliament. "REGULATION (EC) No 562/2006." Official Journal of the European Union. European Parliament and the Council, 2006. Web. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/? uri=CELEX:32006R0562&from=EN

European Union. "The EU and the refugee crisis." The EU and the refugee crisis. Europa Official Website of the EU, n.d. Web.http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/com/factsheets/refugee-crisis/en/

Express. "COMMENT: Migrant crisis proves we are right to leave the EU." Express.co.uk. Express.co.uk, 10 Mar. 2017. Web.http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/777385/migrant-crisis-brexit-european- union-refugees-theresa-may

Nossiter, Adam and Lima, Mauricio. "'We Are Ready to Leave': France Clears Out Calais 'Jungle'" The New York Times. 24 Oct. 2016. Web. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/world/europe/we-are-ready-to-leave-france- clears-out-the-jungle.html?_r=0

Schengen Visa Information. "The Schengen Agreement: Countries, Map and the Definition." Schengen Agreement. Schengen Visa Information, n.d. Web. http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/schengen-agreement/