• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Isles of the Left

For socially just, egalitarian and greener Malta

Menu
  • Home
  • Manifesto
  • About
    • WHO WE ARE
    • CONTACT US
  • Magazine
    • LONG READ
    • CULTUREEverything you like to know about culture
    • ECONOMY
    • ENVIRONMENT
    • SOCIETY & POLITICS
    • EDUcation & OPPortunity
    • SEXUALITY & GENDER
    • TECHNOLOGY
    • HUMOUR
    • POETRYPoetry and essays
    • VOICES
  • Reading Lists
  • Podcasts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram

Building Walls: Fear and Securitization in the European Union

January 30, 2019 · European Alternatives ·

The report from Transnational Institute reveals that member states of the European Union and Schengen Area have constructed almost 1000 km of walls, the equivalent of more than six times the total length of the Berlin Wall.

by European Alternatives

Collage by Isles of the Left

 

This article was originally published on our friends’ site Political Critique.

 

On November 9th 1989, the Berlin Wall fell, marking what many hoped would be a new era of cooperation and openness across borders. German President Horst Koehler celebrating its demise some years later spoke of an ‘edifice of fear’ replaced by a ‘place of joy’, opening up the possibility of a ‘cooperative global governance which benefits everyone’. 30 years later, the opposite seems to have happened. Edifices of fear, both real and imaginary, are being constructed everywhere fuelling a rise in xenophobia and creating a far more dangerous walled world for refugees fleeing for safety.

This report from Transnational Institute reveals that member states of the European Union and Schengen Area have constructed almost 1000 km of walls, the equivalent of more than six times the total length of the Berlin Walls, since the nineties to prevent displaced people migrating into Europe. These physical walls are accompanied by even longer ‘maritime walls’, naval operations patrolling the Mediterranean, as well as ‘virtual walls’, border control systems that seek to stop people entering or even traveling within Europe, and control movement of population. Europe has turned itself in the process into a fortress excluding those outside—and in the process also increased its use of surveillance and militarised technologies that has implications for its citizens within the walls.

Post-9/11 has transformed Europe’s policies from a more social agenda to one centered on security, in which migrations and the movements of people are considered as threats to state security.

The report seeks to study and analyse the scope of the fortification of Europe as well as the ideas and narratives upon which it is built. This report examines the walls of fear stoked by xenophobic parties that have grown in popularity and exercise an undue influence on European policy. It also examines how the European response has been shaped in the context of post-9/11 by an expanded security paradigm, based on the securitization of social issues. This has transformed Europe’s policies from a more social agenda to one centered on security, in which migrations and the movements of people are considered as threats to state security. As a consequence, they are approached with the traditional security tools: militarism, control, and surveillance.

Berlin Wall. Picture by foundin_a_attic / Flickr. Some rights reserved.

 

Europe’s response is unfortunately not an isolated one. States around the world are answering the biggest global security problems through walls, militarisation, and isolation from other states and the rest of the world. This has created an increasingly hostile world for people fleeing from war and political prosecution.

The foundations of “Fortress Europe” go back to the Schengen Agreement in 1985, that while establishing freedom of movement within EU borders, demanded more control of its external borders. This model established the idea of a safe interior and an unsafe exterior.

Successive European security strategies after 2003, based on America’s “Homeland Security” model, turned the border into an element that connects local and global security.

Successive European security strategies after 2003, based on America’s “Homeland Security” model, turned the border into an element that connects local and global security. As a result, the European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) became increasingly militarised, and migration was increasingly viewed as a threat.

Fortress Europe was further expanded with policy of externalization of the border management to third countries in which agreements have been signed with neighbouring countries to boost border control and accept deported migrants. The border has thus been transformed into a bigger and wider geographical concept.

 

Frontex: the Walls’ Borderguards

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) plays an important role in this whole process of fortress expansion and also acts and establishes coordination with third countries by its joint operation Coordination Points. Its budgets have soared in this period, growing from 6.2 million in 2005 to 302 million in 2017.

An analysis of Frontex budget data shows a growing involvement in deportation operations, whose budgets have grown from 80,000 euros in 2005 to 53 million euros in 2017. The European Agency for the Border and Coast Guard (Frontex) deportations often violate the rights of asylum-seeking persons. Through Frontex’s agreements with third countries, asylum-seekers end up in states that violate human rights, have weak democracies, or score badly in terms of human development (HDI).

Hungary – Serbia border barrier. Wikimedia Commons, Bőr Benedek.

 

Walls of Fear and the Influence of the Far-Right

The far-right have manipulated public opinion to create irrational fears of refugees. This xenophobia sets up mental walls in people, who then demand physical walls. The analysed data shows a worrying rise in racist opinions in recent years, which has increased the percentage of votes to European parties with a xenophobic ideology, and facilitated their growing political influence. In 28 EU member states, there are 39 political parties classified as extreme right populists that at some point of their history have had at least one parliamentary seat (in the national Parliament or in the European Parliament).

At the completion of this report (July 2018), 10 member states (Germany, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Netherlands, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Sweden) have xenophobic parties with a strong presence, which have obtained more than half a million votes in elections since 2010. With the exception of Finland, these parties have increased their representation. In some cases, like those in Germany, Italy, Poland and Sweden, there has been an alarming increase, such as Alternative for Germany (AfD) winning 94 seats in the 2017 elections (a party that did not have parliamentary representation in the 2013 elections), the Law and Justice party (PiS) in Poland winning 235 seats after the 2015 elections (an increase of 49%), and Lega Nord’s (LN) strong growth in Italy, which went from 18 seats in 2013 to 124 seats in 2018.

Deadly Surveillance by JérémY / Flickr. Some rights reserved.

 

The study concludes that, in 9 of these 10 states, extreme right-wing parties have a high degree of influence on the government’s migration policies, even when they are a minority party. In 4 of them (Austria, Finland, Italy and Poland) these parties have ministers in the government. In 5 of the remaining 6 countries (Germany, Denmark, Holland, Hungary, and Sweden), there has been an increase of xenophobic discourse and influence.

The positions of the most radical and racist parties are amplified with hardly any effort.

Even centrist parties seem happy to deploy the discourse of xenophobic parties to capture a sector of their voters rather than confront their ideology and advance an alternative discourse based on people’s rights. In this way, the positions of the most radical and racist parties are amplified with hardly any effort. In short, our study confirms the rise and influence of the extreme-right in European migration policy which has resulted in the securitization and criminalization of migration and the movements of people.

The mental walls of fear are inextricably connected to the physical walls. Racism and xenophobia legitimise violence in the border area Europe. These ideas reinforce the collective imagination of a safe “interior” and an insecure “outside”, going back to the medieval concept of the fortress. They also strengthen territorial power dynamics, where the origin of a person, among other factors, determines her freedom of movement.

In this way, in Europe, structures and discourses of violence have been built up, diverting us from policies that defend human rights, coexistence and equality, or more equal relationships between territories.

The complete report is available here.

 

Read More!

Tagged With: borders, far-right, freedom of movement, mass surveillance, migration, security

The IotL Magazine

stands for a socially just, egalitarian and greener Malta.

View all posts

While we have you...

...We have a high opinion of our readers and thus post no clickbait. If you like what you read here, kindly help us to protect our content from the bias of social media filters. Not to miss any of our posts, hover over the button "Following" on our Facebook page and check "See first", "Notifications - All On". That way we will always feature on your timeline.

Thank you!

Primary Sidebar

    POPULAR ARTICLES

  • Promise & Betrayal: A Former American University of Malta Lecturer Speaks Out
    May 31, 2018
    By Former lecturer at AUM
    We were given time-consuming tasks to complete over the holidays, including the organization of Spring’s student orientation. Little did we...
  • Ħamalli And Non-Ħamalli: A Tale Of Two Public Spheres
    December 12, 2017
    By Bernard Cauchi | 2 Comments
    Why we dismiss experiences of people whose tastes and behavior do not fit the accepted norms. (more…)
  • Parenting Dilemmas: State or Private Schools?
    May 30, 2018
    By Rita M. | 11 Comments
    Here, for the record, I will spell out what nobody in this country seems even remotely willing to mention: how...
  • What Does it Mean to Be a Foreigner in Malta?
    April 12, 2018
    By Raisa Galea | 5 Comments
    Although they are uniformly referred to as “foreigners”, foreign nationals receive contrasting treatment, depending on their social status and nationality....
  • The Not-So-Maltese Cross
    January 17, 2018
    By Michael Grech | 2 Comments
    How the emblem of debauched foreign aristocracy became the ultimate symbol of Maltese identity. (more…)
My Tweets

 Essential  Read:           

Racist Rants, ‘Authentic Emotions’ and Fake News

Kathrin Schödel

 Get Our Top Stories
 Right in Your Inbox 
 

 Our  Friends: 

Footer

WE ARE:

-.. . -.. .. -.-. .- – . -.. / .- -. -.. / . -. – …. ..- … .. .- … – .. -.-.

Raisa
Galea
Michael
Grech
Kurt
Borg
Francois
Zammit
Rachael
Scicluna
Josephine
Burden
Daiva
Repečkaitė
Joseph
Abela
Martin
Galea
Bernard
Cauchi
Abigail
Muscat
Alicia
Said
Maria
Theuma

WE FOLLOW:

WE DISCUSS:

tax avoidance mass surveillance segregation geopolitics social media heritage Mediterranean Literature Festival sympathy locals popular participation rent waste reduction post-growth abortion Islam stigma Panama Papers saħħa mentali European Parliament Elections 2019 apathy social enterprise urban planning Marxism transfeminism caregivers

For a socially just, egalitarian and greener Malta © 2022 · Log in

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.