By Catherine Woollard
The talk among security analysts is of the US “decoupling” from Europe but what we’ve seen goes far beyond this. It is about open hostility, and the threat of coercion, conquest, and destruction in the pursuit of an ideological agenda. Yes, there are threats to territorial integrity (direct and indirect) and a need for territorial defence, but democracy in Europe is just as much a target. It is clear from the comments and actions of Vance and Musk as well as Trump that the US government wants to see like-minded far-right, nationalist, anti-democratic governments in as many European countries as possible. That is of course the longstanding agenda of their new ally, Russia, but the US has far more tools to achieve it, being a more powerful country across multiple domains and an erstwhile ally, with the interdependence and insights that entails. We should expect manipulation of migration to be one of the tools used to achieve this aim.
Analysing and pre-empting the use of people and the politics of migration needs to be higher priority, with a better response than the futile effort to prevent the arrival of refugees. The security debate has focused on increasing defence spending, even up to a ludicrous 5%, with little explanation of which security threats all this spending will neutralise, especially given that European capabilities remain intrinsically dependent on the US and that Russia can use a nuclear threat at any point (fear of which limited deployment of existing capabilities in – or for – Ukraine). More attention should be on defence in what is called the cognitive domain of security – attempts to influence and manipulate individuals and populations. This is where the threat to democracy will play out and where using migration as a weapon is most successful – and where most defensive efforts are woefully inadequate or downright counterproductive.
Manipulation of refugees and responses
The “weaponisation” or “instrumentalisation” of refugees is nothing new – displaced people have been manipulated by states throughout all of history – indeed before there even were states, powerful forces used forcible displacement of the vulnerable to achieve their objectives. In recent European policy and law making, using the pretence that this is something new, a partially successful campaign has been made to allow states to ignore their legal obligations in situations of so-called instrumentalisation. The ultimate aim – currently fervently advocated by the government of Poland in various non-papers, but also by many states in their interventions in a group of cases at the European Court of Human Rights, is to undermine the principle of non-refoulement. Their argument is that they should be allowed to pushback, refoule, or deny access to asylum to people at the borders when they have been used by hostile states. How this attack on international law will stop hostile states manipulating people remains unclear. At the same time, there is another risk to the system in the form of incoming German Chancellor Merz’s proposals on suspension of asylum applications, at least from people arriving at the borders but maybe beyond that.
Upheaval = displacement
With the arrival of hurricane Trump, there is no shortage of dramatic events creating or contributing to displacement which can be exploit to harm Europe. One is the destruction of USAID and its impact on the humanitarian system which collectively supports 10s of millions of displaced people. People are already dying as a consequence, and in the major crises around Europe, displaced people may be forced to move to seek protection. Second, the lunacy over the future of Gaza and the fate of the Palestinian people, could lead to any number of challenges – more mass slaughter, ethnic cleansing, instability or system collapse in neighbouring countries. Third, an imposed Putinesque (non)peace in Ukraine will make it hugely challenging to support managed return of Ukrainians (along with multiple other consequences). Generally, violence, lack of respect for international law, and bolstering autocrats all lead to displacement. The kneejerk reaction is to characterise people themselves as a security threat and to try to prevent arrivals. Even if this were possible – which it’s not – it wouldn’t change anything – it is rather the deeper manipulation of the issue that generates security threats, not least by feeding undemocratic forces. As the Ukraine displacement demonstrated, it is not the number of arrivals but the effectiveness of the response that determines whether or not a crisis develops.
The last thing Europe needs now is a crisis on migration or refugee issues. It would be at best a distraction, at worse it could be fatal. And is exactly what the US, Russia and others may try to generate. How then to respond? A few suggestions:
Maintain a functioning Common European Asylum System.
If the system collapses, there will be chaos. There will be vulnerable people in limbo across Europe, pushed from one country to another. There will be political conflicts between the Member States which absorb time and effort that needs to be spent on dealing with Europe’s new enemy (i.e. the most powerful country in the world). If Germany suspends the right to asylum, the system will not survive.
Decide on long-term options for people displaced from Ukraine.
As ECRE has repeatedly argued, after an exemplary response in 2022, the EU is not adequately prioritising the Ukraine displacement crisis. That is true for the former and current Commissioners. Limping from one last-minute annual renewal of the TPD to another is not sufficient. There are a range of options to provide long-term security for people displaced from Ukraine – longer term renewal of the TPD, transfer to other existing protection or non-protection legal statuses, reform of the Long-term Residents Directive, etc (see ECRE’s suggestions). The adapted response needs to be coordinated by the EU and funded by the EU and European development banks. Otherwise onward movement and concentration in certain states will increase, as will the risk of people making asylum applications – already significantly up in 2024. The best option remains voluntary return to Ukraine following a fair and sustainable peace agreement that allows for return and reconstruction. Given current circumstances, a back-up plan would appear wise.
The rapid, assertive and collective response of the EU in 2022 meant that the arrival of refugees from Ukraine could not be exploited. It was well-managed partly because there was an understanding that averting crisis and accompanying political paralysis was also a security and indeed military question. It is again.
Be honest about demographic change and the value of new populations.
While spouting anti-migration and/or anti-refugee rhetoric (wrongly), governments in Europe are at the same time (rightly) facilitating the arrival of migrants, notably people who come to work. Demographic change means that there are acute labour market shortages across Europe. A new development is the geographic scope, which now covers the whole of Europe, meaning that people cannot be recruited from elsewhere within wider Europe. Across the public and private sectors of much of Europe, in the regular and illicit labour markets, there is a dependence on migrant labour. Yet this is taboo, until recently unacknowledged by governments. The self-defeating strategy – such as there is one – involves stopping all arrivals of people at borders and pumping out hateful and inaccurate rhetoric to justify the violence used, while at the same time desperately trying to recruit workers from other regions.
It isn’t working. First, understandably, the public gets confused and suspicious about what is happening. Second, this does nothing to combat the far right, which has generally moved far beyond “border management” as an objective and is now deep into Great Replacement Theory territory, supporting mass deportations. The approach of the mainstream is the equivalent of friendly fire in the cognitive security domain: politicians shooting themselves in the foot by making promises they can’t keep and contributing to toxic thinking that makes it impossible to have a serious migration policy. Why not be a bit more honest and also support rapid refugee inclusion as part of the response.
Respond collectively and urgently – but not always as the EU.
It is now very difficult to manage security threats to Europe in EU settings because there at least one Member State sides with those who would like to destroy the EU. On managing asylum, Ukraine – anything – it is not only that some Member States are blocking collective action. Rather, they are actively pursuing the agenda of those threatening the EU – while of course taking money from the EU budget. This will be doubly or triply the case when the security threat is undermining democracy by installing more extreme right governments, and generating a political crisis on asylum or migration to do that. Strategising and decision-making to defend democracy and rule of law (which are security questions), need to be taken separately and then either brought into the EU system or implemented outside it. Smaller coalitions – variable geometry and minilateralism – is essential.
Moving from shock to action to defend Europe means looking at the full range of security domains and responding to the attacks on democracy including the efforts to promote anti-democratic forces. In this context, migration is a security threat – but not in the way commonly presented. The threat is not primarily about people in the physical space; it is in the cognitive domain. Yes, some individuals might present a risk, but that is the same for any group of people and that is a tiny minority. The risks are that Europe allows an unnecessary crisis to develop – that it allows its enemies to provoke a crisis through manipulating the movement of people and through discourse, thinking and fear on the issue. The way to neutralise the threat is to avoid actions that collapse the system, to stop making promises that can’t be kept, and to manage the system. The last thing Europe needs is a “refugee crisis”. As its old – and new – enemies well know.