Norm Circles, Stigma and the Securitization of Asylum: A Comparative Study of Australia and Sweden Mary Lynn De Silva B.A. (Hons), BSc. (Hons), Grad. Dip. Ed. This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The University of Western Australia School of Social Sciences Political Science and International Relations 2017 THESIS DECLARATION I, Mary Lynn De Silva, certify that: This thesis has been substantially accomplished during enrolment in the degree. This thesis does not contain material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in my name, in any university or other tertiary institution. No part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission in my name, for any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior approval of The University of Western Australia and where applicable, any partner institution responsible for the joint-award of this degree. This thesis does not contain any material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. The work(s) are not in any way a violation or infringement of any copyright, trademark, patent, or other rights whatsoever of any person. This thesis does not contain work that I have published, nor work under review for publication. Signature: Date: 31/10/2017 ii ABSTRACT This thesis seeks to answer the question: why has asylum seeker policy in Australia been constructed politically as a response to a purported national security threat, but not so in Sweden, which proportionately has a much higher rate of asylum applications, and which is more accessible geographically than Australia? In other words, why has the securitization of asylum been unsuccessful in Sweden and yet highly successful in Australia? While both Australia and Sweden have similar international legal obligations to asylum seekers, different policies have been pursued in Australia because norms inherent in the Refugee Convention have been rejected in favour of alternative political norms, which serve the short-term interests of politicians who determine policy, and there is no countervailing influence strong enough to support the norms of international law. I argue that the securitization of asylum is successful when there is a stable relationship between a dominant securitizing actor and members of the audience based on their mutual endorsement and enforcement of hegemonic, exclusionary norms. Where the nature of the political system is majoritarian, as opposed to consensus-based, securitization speech acts are more likely to be accepted, particularly when the exclusionary norms underpinning the securitization discourse are unchallenged. A supplementary precondition for successful securitization is that exclusionary norms are reinforced by ethnic conceptualizations of national identity. Further, in determining whether norms of international law are accepted or rejected, a key role is played by the political use of stigma to support or reject international legal norms. The main contribution of the thesis lies in a conceptualization of the agency of securitizing and non-securitizing actors, as well as target audiences, as members of norm circles. The case study of Sweden demonstrates how hegemonic power is used to wield stigma towards a minority party, so as to prevent the already politicized issue of asylum from becoming a securitized issue. This is so despite the rising popularity of the Sweden Democrats, and the extraordinary influx of asylum seekers to the country since 2015. The case study of Australia demonstrates how hegemonic power is used to wield stigma in a compelling way against those who challenge the securitization of asylum policy and against asylum seekers, in order to allow the issue of asylum to remain highly securitized. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Conceptualizing Norm Circles, Stigma and the Securitization of Asylum 12 1. Introduction 12 2. Literature Review 14 3. Securitization Theory 19 4. Norm Circles and Stigma 33 5. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 43 6. Conclusion 47 Chapter 2: Comparing Asylum Policy in Australia and Sweden 50 1. Introduction 50 2. Australia and Sweden in Comparative Perspective 51 3. Phases of Asylum Policy Change and Securitization 61 4. Political Systems 73 5. Hegemonic Norms 81 6. Conclusion 94 Chapter 3: Multilateral and Bilateral Frameworks for Asylum Policy in Australia and Sweden 96 1. Introduction 96 2. Burden-Sharing and Burden-Shifting 97 3. Australia and South East Asia 99 4. Sweden and the European Union 120 5. The European Court of Human Rights and Treaty-Monitoring Bodies 137 6. Conclusion 140 Chapter 4: Hegemonic Norms and Securitization in Australian Asylum Policy 142 1. Introduction 142 2. The Australian Political System 144 3. Ethnic Nationalism 152 4. The Hegemonic Norm Circle in the Australian Parliament 162 5. The UNHCR and the Australian Human Rights Commission 166 6. Conclusion 172 Chapter 5: Securitization of Asylum in Australia during recent Federal Elections 175 1. Introduction 175 2. Types of Stigma in the Australian Parliament 176 3. Labor’s Policy Ambivalence: 2001-2009 181 4. A Closer Look at the 2010 Federal Election 198 5. A Closer Look at the 2013 Federal Election 211 6. An Overview of the 2016 Federal Election 225 7. Conclusion 228 Chapter 6: Hegemonic Norms and Securitization in Swedish Asylum Policy 230 1. Introduction 230 2. Stigma, Norm Circles and Securitization 232 3. The Role of Compromise in the Swedish Parliamentary System 240 4. Norm Circles and the Swedish Parliament 249 5. Xenophobia, Stigma and Securitization 251 6. Labour Market Integration and Challenging Out-Group Stigma 261 7. Conclusion 263 Chapter 7: Obstacles to Securitization of Asylum in Sweden since 2010 266 1. Introduction 266 2. Types of Stigma in the Swedish Riksdag 267 3. A Closer Look at the 2010 General Election 271 4. A Closer Look at the 2014 General Election 289 5. The Refugee Crisis in Sweden in 2015 308 6. Conclusion 318 Conclusion 321 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I acknowledge the support of my PhD supervisors, Dr. Roderic Pitty, Dr. Bruce Stone and Professor Graham Brown of the Department of Political Science and International Relations. I thank my Honours Supervisor, Professor Brenda Walker of English and Cultural Studies, for lending me wings, so that I could realize my own potential. I am grateful for the help of individuals at the Centre of Advanced Security Studies (CAST) at the University of Copenhagen. In particular, I thank Professor Ole Wæver for his advice that led me to the develop a normative framework in my research; Professor Lene Hansen for her useful insights on de- securitization; and Dr. Ulrik Pram Gad for his gracious help and advice on how to organize my research. I am also very grateful to Dr. Dave Elder-Vass for providing valuable assistance and for his spirit of generosity. I thank Professor Ann Numhauser-Henning of Lund University for pointing me to studies on belonging that have guided my research. I am indebted to Professor Jonas Hinnfors of Gothenburg University who met with me over a Swedish winter and Summer solstice to discuss, at length, the fascinating dynamics of the Swedish parliament. His suggestions on how to overcome some of the obstacles I faced in my research have been priceless. I thank Dr. Elisabeth Abiri for her sound advice, and especially for mailing me her personal copy of her invaluable dissertation. I am also grateful to Dr. Juan Amaya-Castro for inspiring key ideas on my research, and MP Kent Ekeroth of the Sweden Democrats for many revealing conversations about his party’s agenda. My friends and colleagues at UWA have been trailblazers and pillars of support since I began my PhD in 2012. Grace Boffey, Andrew Chubb and Will Lee have always been there for me when I needed to talk, frolic in the ocean, or deliberate key aspects of my work. Luisa Miceli and Ben Sacks have graced me with loyal friendship and compassion as co-travellers on this perilous PhD path. The incredible twelve-year journey towards the PhD dream, however, would not have been fathomable without the tenacity, humour and enduring friendship of Dr. Tinashe Chinzou. I am also deeply grateful to Peter De Michiel for paving the way for this PhD, and for giving me tremendous support during the journey, and long before it ever began. Tack för allt, Peter och familj. v Most of all, I thank my mother, father, and sister for being my North Star, my Boxing Coach and my Wingman respectively. My mother’s sacrifices, support and love are felt on every page of this thesis. In advocating the human rights of asylum seekers, I honour my father’s heart and his willingness to fight for the innocent and vulnerable. My sister’s effortless grace and intelligence set the bar, whilst her protective presence paved the way for every personal success. I thank my nephews, Emilio and Cruz, for being my raison d’être. My thesis is dedicated to my grandmother, Eyleen Rebeiro, and to every person who seeks to belong. vi Introduction “The question is not, as for Hamlet, to be or not to be, but to belong or not to belong.” Marcel Proust (1999: 572) The 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees defines a refugee as someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. An asylum seeker is an individual seeking international protection and whose refugee status is yet to be determined. Signatories to the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect asylum seekers and respect the Convention as both a status and rights-based instrument, underpinned by a number of fundamental principles, most notably non-discrimination, non-penalization and non-refoulement.