- 1 The quotations have been translated by the author. The original language is German.
- 2 The term “refugee crisis”, which describes the entry of thousands of refugees and migrants into the (...)
1With appeals such as “Every person has the right to live in dignity”1 (Müller, 2015), but also “If we do not invest more strength in solving the problems on the ground, the problems will come to us” (Müller, 2016), the current Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, Dr Gerd Müller, addressed the public and parliament in the wake of the refugee movement of 2015 to 2017. Background of these statements is the so-called refugee protection crisis2 that has occurred in 2015 (from a Eurocentric perspective) in the wake of the Syrian Iraqi violent conflict, the spread of Daesh, and the migration movements on the African continent. Politically, these events led to a reorientation of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), in which the all-encompassing concept of “tackling the root causes of displacement”, especially in the states of the Middle East, and North and East Africa, was placed at the centre of the political agenda.
2Alongside images of the German “welcome culture”, forms of political mistrust and radicalisation have emerged in this context, with which political decision-makers are now more than ever confronted with today. In the context of the refugee protection crisis, there are therefore numerous points of connection to almost every policy field that challenge or legitimise political action. This makes it a highly explosive event with lasting and far-reaching consequences that are reflected in political programmes, discourses, and measures. In this context, the policy field of development cooperation, which historically prioritises securing livelihoods and the sustainable development of state structures, is undergoing a fundamental transformation. The frequently proclaimed moral-humanitarian orientation is being met with an increasing demand for security policy strategies in the context of immigration to Germany. Whilst interest-driven objectives have historically characterised policy-making, the security aspect is assuming a new quality in this case.
- 3 In the following, an inclusive definition of the term is used, so that it includes people who have (...)
3In this particular context, development cooperation combines two specific claims. Primarily, it asserts the humanitarian imperative to provide essential aid to those affected and to ensure humane prospects for life. Secondly, it claims to reduce refugee movements to the European Union through effective measures in the long and short term. This tension is also reflected in the public legitimisation discourses of central political actors. In these discourses, migrants3 are used as political objects to justify aid measures in their home countries as well as protection measures of the host state.
4The present research is focused on the refugee protection crisis, with a particular emphasis on the years 2015 and 2016. The analysis demonstrates—in line with a modern understanding of the Copenhagen School—a securitisation of migrants within the policy field of development cooperation, as represented by individual securitising actors of the Federal Republic of Germany. The subsequent article also explores the question of the extent to which there are competing approaches to securitisation. This is based on the assumption that, in the sense of a dynamic concept of security and in view of diverging legitimisation strategies, competing securitising moves with different directions of action can be presented.
5Since about 2001, migrants and refugees have increasingly been perceived as a threat and risk to the sovereignty and identity of a nation-state (McDonald, 2008: 567; Boswell, 2007: 589). On the one side, this coincides with the terrorist attacks on 11th September 2001; on the other side, the securitisation of asylum seekers in particular became institutionalised when “boat people” arriving in Europe were increasingly assessed from the perspective of border security (McDonald, 2015: 157-160). This development is evident in the verbalisation and characterisation of those affected, as well as in the attempts to counter this perceived threat (McDonald, 2008: 567). This includes, for example, border protection measures and controls, military training programmes, and the establishment of special agencies and programmes (Ibid.; Neal, 2009). In these cases, migration acts as a “trigger” for policies centred on the protection of the state, the market and the society (Huysmans, 2000: 757). Thus, a security-migration nexus emerges that builds on the assumption “[…] that immigration has increasingly been portrayed as a threat to European societies, or has even become the ‘new focus for insecurity’” (Boswell, 2007: 591).
6Huysmans (2001: 197-198) identifies not only aspects of cultural identity as the driving force of increasing insecurity, but also—in the wake of the growing nationalism and racism debate—concerns and fears regarding social and political collapse. As a result, he notes that the phenomenon of migration has been “politicised, signifying that the term itself has evolved into a medium for articulating diverse policies and perspectives” (Huysmans, 2001: 203). This usually results in a negative connotation, for example in the sense of scapegoating or the shifting of internal problems to external borders (Ibid.). This security-migration nexus, along with the associated research, constitutes the broader framework of this study.
- 4 From a cosmopolitan perspective, the human security approach prioritises individual human rights ov (...)
7The general pursuit of security is mostly based on the desire to protect a political community (Dalby, 1997: 9). In this regard, from a constructivist ontological perspective, threats are said to be constructible based on the policies that are legitimated and conceptualised. In relation to the nature of the policy field, Daase (2010) contends that security can only be classified within an expanded understanding. In this particular context, it is imperative to emphasise the significance of integrating the human security4 approach into the explicit assertions of development policy. Furthermore, the analysis is based on a dynamic, socially constructed concept of security (Buzan et al., 1998), which is changeable within discourse, can take on different forms and represents competing constructions of meaning.
8The theoretical foundations of this approach are based on the theory of the Copenhagen School with the constructivist concept of securitisation from Buzan et al. (1998). According to the Copenhagen School, this process of securitisation is based on discursive forms of expression known as speech acts: “[an] issue is presented as an existential threat, requiring emergency measures and justifying actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure” (Buzan et al., 1998: 23-24). In particular, the focus is on so-called securitising actors (frequently represented by political elites), whose speech acts serve to justify their own policies and serve the interests of their audience: “Security is a practice, a specific way of framing an issue. Security discourse is characterised by dramatising an issue as having absolute priority” (Wæver, 1996: 106). While there is a debate about the definition of the so-called extraordinary or emergency measures—as part of the securitisation process and as a consequence of the threatening scenario—Ciută (2009: 313) and others argue that this category should be assessed contextually. It can thus be concluded that in view of the identified threat, the adoption and subsequent implementation of extraordinary measures within the designated policy areas may potentially be considered necessary (Ciută, 2009: 313-314; Vietti and Scribner, 2013: 23). Accordingly, the legitimisation of the concept of “tackling the root causes of displacement” in the German development policy takes place, among other things, through the creation of an omnipresent threat posed by migrants.
9Alternatively, further patterns of legitimisation arise exclusively from the substantive orientation of the policy field through the characterisation of migrants as victims who are threatened by the circumstances in their countries of origin. In this instance, there is an overlap with the human security approach, from which an incentive for action in development cooperation can be derived. Due to a comparatively closed formulation of a national, territorial, and social concept of security in the classic interpretation of the Copenhagen School (Buzan et al., 1998), the concept of human security is only embedded in the latest understanding of the theory (Floyd, 2007; Watson, 2011; Newman, 2010; McDonald, 2008). Nevertheless, Buzan et al. (1998: 36) also states that, according to the Copenhagen School, in principle everything can be declared a reference object—that object which is presented as threatened. The subject of migration is subsumed by them under the keyword of “societal security”, in which primarily the identity of society is seen as threatened (Buzan et al., 1998: 125). However, this theory runs the risk of objectifying society and identity within the framework of its theoretical corset (Williams, 2003: 519). This aspect can also be traced in the example of development policy, where the rhetoric is strongly oriented towards an “us” and “them” line of argumentation (Williams, 2003: 520). Here, German society, but also migrants and refugees, are each subliminally ascribed a singular identity. Although development policy does not primarily concern itself with domestic or social policy, it still contributes to the establishment of boundaries that delineate of one’s own society.
10The existential threat and the call for extraordinary measures that underlie the process of securitisation can also be found in the policy field of development cooperation. In 2015, for example, the current Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development issued far-reaching and novel special initiatives that break with the classic concept of development cooperation and place greater emphasis on tackling the root causes of displacement (Krempin and Giehler, 2016). Consequently, the policy field has been significantly narrowed by the minister to the topic of migration, which has led to the neglect of other relevant fields of action (Dieckmann, 2017). This is reflected on the one hand in the programmatic orientation and on the other hand, for example, in financial allocations (BMZ, 2015a). This process is characterised by a rhetoric that accentuates the survival, urgency, and necessity as well as the exceptionality of the necessary measures in relation to nation-state security (Stritzel, 2007: 360). In this context, “speaking security” signifies not only merely the description of a threat scenario, but rather the creation of a new reality and the establishment of a new way or approach of addressing an issue (Stritzel, 2007: 361).
11In justifying emergency measures, the issue of migration is usually embedded in the categories of the state and its citizens; in this framework, migration is represented as a potential threat to the homogeneity of the population or the state’s capacity to act (Bigo, 2002: 67; Boswell, 2011: 14). Analytical truths cannot counter this framing (Bigo, 2002: 66; Ceyhan and Tsoukala, 2002). Instead, migrants symbolise the intermingling of foreign policy and domestic security aspects and have become a connection factor for an increasing risk and security society due to their frequent linkage with issues such as growing crime, terrorism, or globalisation (Bigo, 2002: 63-64). Moreover, border control and management of entry are regarded as an integral component of state sovereignty, thereby rendering irregular migration a perpetual challenge to the very existence of the state and its self-image (Vietti and Scribner, 2013: 23).
12In the specific context of development policy, the competing threat scenario gives rise to a concurrent justification of the policy, whereby migrants are positioned within a victim role. This paradigm shift in the direction of the argument is characterised by the perception of migrants as a threatened group, particularly in the context of political, social, or economic circumstances in their respective regions of origin. Consequently, migrants are regarded as either an indifferent totality or an individual entity, thereby becoming the reference object of danger and vulnerability. This highlights the imperative for immediate action and the moral urgency, emphasising the necessity of extraordinary measures to both the audience and, ultimately, the voters (Gebauer, 2016: 51).
13The human security approach and development cooperation are intricately linked, as evidenced by the expansion of classic development policy competencies to encompass circular crises such as migration, humanitarian disasters, and displacement due to poverty and instability (Duffield, 2006: 25). In this paradigm, human well-being is recognised as the overarching objective of policy and ultimately as the reference object in line with the Copenhagen School (Floyd, 2011: 432). According to Floyd (2011: 435), securitisation in this context inherently entails a moral obligation. This shift represents a departure from the notion of postulated neutrality, opting instead for a normative analysis to be at the core of security research (Ibid.).
14In accordance with the expansion of the understanding of security, there is subsequently an expansion of the dimensions of this conceptualisation (Daase, 2010: 2). According to Daase (Ibid.), this concerns the factual as well as the reference dimension, the spatial and the so-called danger dimension. This results in the following categorisation.
Table 1: Dimensions of the Securitisation Approaches
|
Issue dimension
|
Reference dimension
|
Spatial dimension
|
Danger dimension
|
|
Refugees and migrants as threats = criminalisation
|
societal
|
German society
|
regional
|
threats/dangers caused by refugees and migrants
|
|
Refugees and migrants as victims = victimisation
|
humanitarian
|
refugees and migrants
|
regional
|
threats/dangers in the countries of origin
|
Credit: Adapted from Daase (2010: 2).
- 5 However, due to the organisational structure of the ministry, the vast majority of all contribution (...)
15The study is grounded in a post-positivist ontology, within which discourses are posited as the foundation of reality, and reality itself is considered subjective and interpretable. The methodological approach employed within the Copenhagen School concept is subject to variation, primarily due to the diversity inherent within the school’s theoretical framework. The present study opted for a qualitative content analysis to identify individual attributions of meaning and to extract metaphors and images, as well as marginal differences in meaning. In accordance with the theory, securitising actors are frequently political actors that enjoy a relatively broad social acceptance. Consequently, it is reasonable to place the Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development at the centre of the analysis. The archive material also made it possible to supplement and deepen the analysis with contributions from the deputy ministers.5 All of them are regarded as securitising actors within the analysis. This guided the selection of texts.
- 6 The analysis is based on archival material that was accessible at the time of research. As the orig (...)
16The approach is grounded in the framework of qualitative content analysis. The objective of this study is to employ a content analysis to ascertain the extent to which the presumed securitisation approaches are represented within the policy field of development cooperation. The focus lies in the deductive evaluation of the text corpus with reference to the two predefined securitising moves (Cf. Table 1). Alternatively, this is also referred to as strukturierende Inhaltsanalyse (Mayring and Fenzl, 2014: 548). The Erhebungseinheit is the entire text corpus of the archived posts on the BMZ website. For the purposes of the following analysis, the Untersuchungseinheit corresponds to the individual posts included below (in this case, archived speeches and text contributions in various magazines and newspapers)6. Consequently, all contributions from the ministerial online archive between January 2015 and March 2017 were extracted. The initial step in the research process was to undertake clustering based on the issue of migration. This was followed by the evaluation of all texts using an analysis scheme that was created on the basis of the previously described theoretical assumptions. These were over 100 archived speeches, interviews, and text contributions.
17The content analysis underlying this article reveals the presence of two competing securitising moves within the discourse on development policy. Firstly, migrants are portrayed as a threat to German society and its security. Secondly, they are depicted as victims in need of assistance whose living conditions are at risk. These two narratives serve to legitimise specific approaches and measures of development policy.
18At the commencement of 2015, the annual outlook contained only a limited number of references to the issue of migration. However, the concept of “policies serving grandchildren” (enkeltaugliche Politik) was introduced, indicating that, in the absence of the measures implemented by current development policy, the next generation, or rather their standard of living, would be in danger. This underscores the necessity for immediate action. This objective appears to delineate the trajectory for the ensuing years, thereby providing a framework for deliberation and action within the context of the ongoing refugee protection crisis.
19Furthermore, regarding the security aspect, a rhetoric of supposed “direct causality” is used, in which reference is always made to one’s own society:
- 7 The direct quotations are taken from the original German sources and have been translated by the au (...)
“Many simultaneous crises. And more and more we are feeling the effects directly with us. The world is a global village. Internal and external security are the core and outcome of statehood. Conflicts, violence, wars have causes.” (Speech of Müller, Berlin, 28 September 2016)7
20The temporal representation (Cf. Figure 1) shows an increase in the concept of human security and thus a securitisation approach of endangered migrants in the records of the selected development actors for the time of summer 2015. This mostly reflects the mood of the population and thus the electorate during the heyday of the so-called “welcome culture” and a strong willingness to help on the part of German civil society. Refugees were associated with the attributes “in need of help”, “displaced” and “at risk”. In parallel with this, the German government adopted a resolutely optimistic stance, regarding the care of refugees as a collective responsibility. This is exemplified by the widely cited quotation by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, “We can do it!”, delivered in late August 2015. This period also witnessed a notable accumulation of literature pertaining to the subject of migration. It is crucial to acknowledge that the actions of the Ministry of Development are inextricably linked to the policies of the federal government. The profound and complex nature of the “refugee issue” was of particular concern to all departments during this period, leading to its frequent discussion.
Figure 1: Chronological Overview of the Reference Objects, Respectively the Concepts of Security, Examined
Credit: E. Skuza.
21This linkage with the policy of the federal government and in view of the discourse, which primarily serves legitimisation purposes, also explains in a first conclusion the recurrent phenomenon of a “double” concept of security. Thus, the interplay of the lines of argumentation results in an increased pressure to act. Consequently, the political arena and the concomitant rules of political discourse within the context of development cooperation necessitate an adapted selection of language and argumentation. This is predicated on the recognition that the prevailing securitisation of migrants as a threat must be mitigated by alternative textual expressions.
22In the context of concrete argumentation, the discourse surrounding the threat posed by migrants superficially legitimises strategies aimed at preventing migration and halting migratory movements. Conversely, the narrative of threatened migrants, who are often portrayed as victims, serves to legitimise aid measures and the expansion of existing projects.
- 8 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 23 June 2015.
- 9 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 26 April 2015.
- 10 Text contribution from Müller in the newspaper B.Z., 21 April 2015.
- 11 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 28 April 2015.
- 12 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 15 September 2015.
- 13 Interview of Müller, Regensburg, 9 November 2015.
- 14 Interview of Müller, Bonn, 20 March 2017.
- 15 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 26 April 2015.
- 16 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 17 February 2017.
23In terms of argumentation, the presentation of this securitising move refers primarily to the spatial perspective, focusing on the Federal Republic of Germany and the refugees fleeing there, as well as a temporal perspective, highlighting potential future scenarios. This argumentation is often accompanied by a reference to the magnitude of the refugee movement. Within this argumentation and according to a socially oriented concept of security, the individual level is consequently omitted. Moreover, the discourse is characterised by the association of the totality of migrants with adverse connotations, including the propagation of epidemics, the latent threat of terrorism, and domestic instability. The designation of the current situation as a “refugee crisis” serves to underscore the perception that refugees and migrants are the primary cause, thereby reinforcing the notion that they should be the primary recipients of measures to address and combat these issues. These developments are also described by other terms such as “dramatic”,8 “wave of refugees”,9 “catastrophe”10 and “problematic”11 as well as the “immigration pressure on Germany”.12 Furthermore, the scenario is characterised by an absence of adequate protection for this in the Federal Republic of Germany, given that “today we can no longer build a wall around us”13 and “whoever thinks it is enough to build fences around Europe will be surprised”.14 As the refugee protection crisis has evolved, there has been an increase in the choice of vocabulary. Initially, the movements were compared to a wave, as described above15, whereas two years later the term “exodus” was used.16 The metaphor of the “wave” already encapsulates the notion of unstoppable and overwhelming force, while the term “exodus” signifies an exodus of “biblical proportions” that acquires a heightened sense of threat due to its colossal size. In this instance, the threat posed by the mass of migrants is unambiguously accentuated.
- 17 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 23 June 2015.
- 18 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 26 April 2015.
- 19 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 24 November 2015.
- 20 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 2 April 2015.
- 21 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 9 December 2016.
24In terms of the temporal dimension, the focus is primarily on future scenarios, which are presented in a concrete threatening manner, yet usually contain only vague estimates, such as “200 million climate refugees”17 that are expected in the next few years. A similar situation is observed in the forecasts predicting a continuous “wave of refugees” for years to come that will exert significant demands on the Federal Republic of Germany.18 These forecasts underscore the potential consequences, including the possibility of significant costs to Germany and Europe and the threat “to pay a high price”.19 This engenders a sense of urgency to address the issue and combat this “problem”. The central argument here is: “If we do not solve these problems, the problems will come to us”.20 In this context, the strict separation of an ingroup and an outgroup is noteworthy, particularly given the dehumanising tendency of referring to refugees as “problems”. Furthermore, the still unknown dimension and development of this outcome and these forecasts also represent a clear sense of insecurity, as the consequences are increasingly shifting towards Germany according to the Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development.21 This negative connotation has led to refugees and migrants being perceived as a threatening mass that questions the German society in its current state:
“Development policy is an investment in the future. With it, we can prevent refugees from making their way to us. But this must happen quickly now—otherwise they will all run away in the direction of Europe.” (Interview of Müller, Berlin, 24 November 2015)
25In addition to the aforementioned negative connotations, which serve to expand and deepen the threat scenario, links are established between the mass of migrants and other dangers, with the association with diseases and epidemics being a salient one.
- 22 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 12 February 2016.
- 23 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 20 September 2015.
- 24 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 10 December 2015.
- 25 Speech of Müller, Memmingen, 25 April 2015.
26Another argumentative link is the established connection between state integrity and sovereignty, or destabilisation tendencies, and the refugee movement. This applies to states that thus encourage further refugee movements to Europe.22 In addition, the Minister asserts that the preservation of Germany’s security and that of Europe, as a link to the refugee movement, is of the utmost importance with regard to an engagement in the Middle East and Africa.23 Concurrently, it is emphasised that Germany cannot manage this alone24: “The refugee crisis exceeds [...] national capacities”.25 This argument is primarily intended to emphasise the solidarity aspect of the European Union, thereby also suggesting that the “problem” has reached such proportions and thus poses such a great threat that the German state seems to be powerless in parts.
- 26 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 7 June 2016.
27Whilst the analysis material concedes that not all refugees could be considered criminals, the rhetorical juxtaposition with the phenomenon of transnational terrorism favours ad hoc conclusions by the audience, namely that migrants are potential terrorists and a threat. In this context, Germany is described as facing an “extreme threat situation”, and it is noted that the Federal Criminal Police Office is investigating numerous leads concerning suspected terrorists, some of whom appear to have entered the country with other immigrants.26
- 27 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 12 April 2016.
28Müller’s quote, “The refugee issue is a generational challenge”,27 summarises the fundamental aspects of the above presentation of the securitising move and the criminalisation of migrants. This statement signifies that the prevailing circumstances are in a state of flux, and consequently, “problems” are to be anticipated. The temporal outlook, characterised by a sense of imminent threat, further reinforces this notion, suggesting a prolonged expectation of challenges that could potentially impact one’s sense of existence, living conditions, and the internal security of the state. Additionally, the emphasis on the impact on future generations underscores the perception of one’s own society as the primary affected and threatened group by these changes. The employment of the term “refugee issue” serves to dehumanise the situation by its impersonal and diffuse nature, thereby allowing for a wide range of interpretations. This term can be interpreted as a threat of disease, a connection to further horror scenarios such as transnational terrorism, or a destabilisation of the state structure. The collective designation of “migrants” as a potentially menacing entity is attributed to their capacity to challenge the prevailing sociopolitical structure of German society. The interconnections thus underscore the nexus between crises, conflicts, and the refugee protection crisis, thereby reinforcing a pervasive sentiment of diffuse insecurity. This is due to the fact that challenges that were previously perceived as remote now appear to exert a more or less direct influence on one’s own well-being.
- 28 Speech of Müller, Memmingen, 25 April 2015.
29The portrayal of a migrant threat scenario—in the sense of victimisation—is often done in conjunction with the security concerns already mentioned in relation to the refugee protection crisis, thus infusing the texts with a sense of “moral-humanitarian mitigation”. At the same time, the narrative functions to legitimize development cooperation and the specific emphasis on addressing the underlying causes of displacement. The argument is focused on the personal suffering and hardship of the individual that led to a flight (to Europe), thereby establishing an underlying human security concept. Anchor examples of this humanitarian category of analysis are statements such as “no one [...] should have to flee for a life in dignity”.28
- 29 Speech of Müller, Berlin, 10 November 2015.
30In relation to the securitising move, a discernible narrative of victimisation can be formulated, emphasising the fatefulness of the individual refugee’s situation and employing stark extremes in the situational description. It appears that one of the objectives is to elicit a profound emotional response from the audience. Another line of argument refers to the appeal of help for humanitarian reasons, which serves to protect the migrants, but also the formulated own interest, as well as the appeal that one shares a common fate. The discursive representation of migrants within this line of argument appears to be one-sided, without linguistic considerations, but with the help of absolute representations of a community of destiny. Although individual suffering is attributed to this community of fate, suffering and hardship are bundled and generalised. The following quote is particularly explosive: “fear of sexual violence is a main reason for many women to flee, especially in the Middle East and in parts of Africa. On the run and in refugee camps, women are often even more defenceless”.29 This shows, on the one hand, the link with the greatest social evil and individual need, which points to the argument of human security, and on the other hand, a form of generalisation in which all affected women are declared to be “victims”.
- 30 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 28 April 2015.
- 31 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 24 November 2015.
- 32 Ibid.
31The victimisation is generated from two different lines of argumentation: the acute emergency and threatening situation on the ground and the future-oriented and continuing lack of prospects and opportunities due to the inhumane circumstances. However, what all the texts have in common, as previously stated, is that they are characterised by a dramatising choice of words and expressions. This results in the creation of vivid and unsettling imagery for the listener, thereby underscoring the urgency of the threat faced by migrants, particularly those hailing from the Middle East. In this regard, Müller’s assertion that the Syrian president is engaged in a war against his own citizens, employing “methods of the Middle Ages”,30 is particularly noteworthy. The evocative nature of this imagery enables the listener to engage with their own associations, fostering a sense of solidarity and emotional involvement with the migrants, thereby solidifying their status as a reference group. This phenomenon is further compounded by the depiction of living conditions in the regions and areas where the majority of refugees reside. In this context, the metaphor of a “life in a goat shed”,31 in which many refugees, according to Müller, have to live for several years, has a particularly drastic effect.32 This symbolisation of extreme poverty and a life below the subsistence level highlights the personal plight of those who have remained on site and not only creates incentives for a willingness to act at the political level, but also, through the classification of the “others” as victims, holds the German population to account from a moral point of view. A comparatively low variance of the argument becomes apparent in the overall view of the analysis material.
- 33 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 9 July 2015.
- 34 Ibid.
- 35 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 12 April 2016.
32Likewise, most reasons that lead people to flee their country involve threats that migrants face on the ground. Among other things, it is said that “questions of survival of mankind”33 are at stake. According to Müller, “injustice, hunger, exploitation, and climate change”34 are further reasons for global refugee movements. The aforementioned reasons extend beyond the conventional discourse concerning war refugees, incorporating an individual dimension that transcends the traditional arguments. The enumeration of these reasons is indicative of a human security understanding that emphasises the equal opportunities and the security of livelihoods for all individuals. Müller’s position is further elaborated in his subsequent assertion that the affected individuals are deprived of a “perspective on life”.35
- 36 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 23 September 2015.
- 37 Ibid.
33The argumentation regarding the root causes of displacement is further substantiated by the future-oriented dimension of a paucity of opportunities and prospects. This is not only part of the enumeration of the various dangers and pressures on the ground but also refers strongly to the concept of human security, which posits that every human being should have the opportunity to develop freely and to secure their own livelihood. This right is not given in the refugee protection crisis and therefore shows another aspect regarding a threat to migrants. Similarly, narratives of rape and imprisonment, especially of women from the Yezidi ethnic group in Iraq,36 as well as images of dead children on Greek beaches37 deepen the scenario. The political rhetoric employed in these lines of argumentation is clearly characterised by a comparatively strong plasticity, describing in detail, and referring to emotionally stirring scenes, presenting clear images to the audience, and therefore seeking to deepen their consternation.
- 38 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 25 June 2015.
- 39 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 11 September 2015.
- 40 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 1 July 2015.
- 41 Interview of Müller, Osnabrück, 20 June 2015.
- 42 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 26 April 2015.
- 43 Ibid.
- 44 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 26 October 2015.
- 45 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 26 March 2016.
- 46 Interview of Müller, Berlin, 12 February 2016.
34Likewise, the appeals to moral-human compassion illustrate the “victim situation” of those affected. For example, “the Mediterranean must not be a sea of death”38 or “the people come from miserable conditions, humanity is called for”.39 The metaphor employed here is intended to emphasise the dramatic and extreme nature of the initial situation, in which those seeking refuge seem to be directly threatened with death, both on the ground, which leads to the flight, and on the flight route itself. This serves to bolster the minister’s assertion concerning a regional programme aimed at addressing the underlying causes of displacement. This is further emphasised by the statement, “we [are] all Africans with a migration background”,40 which aims to foster sympathy and challenge the conventional boundaries between the in- and outgroup. The argument thus underscores the individual responsibility of all individuals in the face of this distressing situation. This reference to obligation and responsibility in the face of the threat situation to which the refugees are exposed once again points to a human understanding with reference to the human security concept. In this context, terms such as “solidarity”41, “humanitarian superpower”,42 “shame”,43 “disappointment”,44 “humane”45 and the affirmation that this would be a claim under international humanitarian law46 therefore also dominate.
- 47 Interview of Müller, Nuremberg, 24 April 2016.
35Accordingly, the argumentation concerning a threat to migrants, as opposed to the securitising move of a threat posed by migrants, is ostensibly more aligned with the political jargon of the policy field of development cooperation. Nevertheless, the rhetorical communication of this narrative is comparatively subtler. A securitisation approach is evident more in the derivation of the rhetoric used, for example, in view of the claims and demands attributed to those affected, or in the depiction of individual suffering. Due to the orientation towards a strongly humanitarian concept of security, the call to action also does not refer exclusively to German politics; rather the speakers remind the entire “world society” to take responsibility.47
36The tendency to perceive migrants and refugees in a simplistic, one-dimensional manner is a standpoint that is frequently the subject of criticism. On the other hand, there is the distinction between “poor civil war refugees” and so-called “economic refugees” or similar classifications based on a bivariate connotation of the term “immigrant” along the lines of victim versus threat. The multifarious reasons for flight and migration are not reflected in this representation, and similarly, the fate of the individual is only summarised and captured in a generalised overview. However, particularly in periods of large refugee mobility, there has been a discernible escalation in efforts to portray migrants as a security threat or to accentuate their unmitigated hardship, particularly within the crisis-stricken regions of the Middle East. This subjective assessment of migrants is increasingly gaining broad intersubjective understanding in society and cannot be attributed to any particular political direction or interest group. Instead, it is argued that the phenomenon is indicative of contemporary anxieties and patterns of radicalisation, as well as social movements such as the “German culture of welcome”.
37The analysis was also able to reveal these narratives and legitimisation strategies. Furthermore, however, it has shown that in the concrete application in the policy field of development cooperation, the one-dimensionality of role attributions is removed, and different images are used in parallel, sometimes even in the same text corpus (Cf. Figure 1). This observation underscores the notion that a uniform concept of security does not dominate political praxis; rather, security concepts are situated in a dynamic manner, contingent on the prevailing context. The victimisation of refugees, for instance, alludes to a comprehensive humanitarian conception of security that prioritises the protection of the individual. Conversely, the criminalisation of migrants, or the depiction of them as a social threat, goes back to a much more closed concept of security.
38In this context, a language adapted to the audience and electorate is particularly evident, which is usually characterised by expressive images and emotional embellishments. This phenomenon causes legitimisation strategies to resonate more strongly, and the resulting securitisation approaches to become more important for the listener. This applies to both lines of arguments.
39The overall view of the text material confirms that the underlying conceptualisation of security is dynamic, in the sense of competing securitising moves. In the field of development cooperation political rhetoric appears to make use of these different understandings of security, in that the mere declaration of migrants as a threat and the accompanying reinterpretation of the projects in terms of security policy is usually supplemented in the further course by the humanitarian aspect, which serves to legitimise political measures through the aid dimension.
40When these two approaches are considered as legitimisation strategies, it becomes evident that they involve divergent political strategies and development policy measures. Regarding the argumentation of a threat posed by migrants, the focus here is primarily on measures to address the root causes of displacement, which are intended to prevent migration to Europe, as well as measures to rebuild local state structures strengthening national capacities and maintaining a functioning state. In this case, effects are to be achieved for a large target group. The narrative of a “victimisation”, in turn, emphasises perspective programmes with a focus on livelihood security and the expansion of opportunities. Both categories can be regarded as so-called “exceptional measures” within the structure of classic German development cooperation, as they are geared towards rapid visibility and effectiveness and serve to soften classic departmental boundaries, for example to humanitarian aid (Krempin and Giehler, 2016).
41Moreover, the analysis demonstrates at the theoretical level that the Copenhagen School’s theoretical framework can be applied beyond the confines of traditional security narratives. However, this assertion necessitates the theoretical flexibility that contemporary authors of the theory have already begun to espouse. Specifically, rigid definitions, such as the classical concept of security and the so-called extraordinary measures, must be regarded within the context of the specific subject area being examined. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that securitising moves can occur in a dynamic and multifaceted manner within a single subject area, emphasising the complexity and fluidity of these processes. This signifies that the theoretical concept can be applied to realistic situations and remains applicable to different contexts. Furthermore, it serves to highlight the dilemmas that can arise as a result of divergent security concepts. Political rhetoric in the field of development cooperation, for example, seems to make use of these different understandings, in that the mere declaration of migrants as a threat and the associated reinterpretation of the projects in terms of security policy is usually supplemented by the humanitarian aspect, which legitimises the political measures with the aid aspect.
42The mass influx of refugees to Germany in 2015, a phenomenon often characterised by its sudden and overwhelming nature like the breaking of a dam or the accumulation of a catastrophe, has led to a policy of isolation or an “open door” policy at various levels and in various policy areas across national borders. In this context, the distinction between migrants and refugees becomes increasingly blurred. Refugees from the Middle East are typically protected by the 1951 Refugee Convention. Nevertheless, both groups have per se the right to leave their country of origin, just as refugees must be granted special protection. In light of this, and in consideration of the heightened demand for security, there has been a consolidation of various policy areas within the Federal Republic of Germany, encompassing development policy.
43In retrospect, it becomes evident that development cooperation and its understanding of security are in a state of flux, a phenomenon that is exemplified by the refugee protection crisis. For instance, the political concept of security within the government of the Federal Republic of Germany is undergoing a transition towards a holistic approach, to which the various governmental departments have to contribute. As security threats are subject to a general change that requires constant adaptation of the instruments utilised.