Índice de Calidad del Servicio (ICS)

The extended version of securitization theory has been applied to one nation state. Showing how the use of facilitating variables is based on context and power relations. Now we will shift to mainland Europe, analysing the added value of the extended version of securitization theory on the international level. Four members of the European Union will be analysed with the Refugee Crisis being the case study of analysis. We start the European analysis with Francois Hollande, the president of France:

‘As regards population movements, we are facing immigration crises greater than any we have known since the end of the Second World War. This migration, these flows of refugees, which concern Europe, but not only Europe, are the tragic consequences of the growing number of conflicts’ (Hollande, 2015).

In a lengthy speech, Hollande uses securitizing moves, linking migration and terrorism throughout. The first quote mentions the magnitude of the immigration flow towards Europe. For example, he utters that it is becoming easier to travel from Ghana to Europe. What is interesting though is that he does not mention that Europe has dealt with vaster amounts of immigrants in the past. In the 1990s with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Civil War in Yugoslavia the streams of migrants were bigger than the current streams of refugees from Iraq and Syria. By not telling the whole truth he securitizes the issue. Using both variables linking to politics of exception and politics of unease he links the incoming refugees to issues

66

surrounding state sovereignty, internal security, and the distribution of refugees. The following quote illustrates this:

‘Some would have us believe that re-establishing national borders would be a miracle solution. That is a con. But a con that may, briefly, seem convincing. France needs to act at

European and international level, with humanity, when it comes to those who are fleeing crises and wars, but also firmly, distinguishing between types of migration. We need to

respond to humanitarian emergencies, including the current ones, organize the reception of migrants and shoulder our responsibilities in terms of asylum, as well as ensuring the return of rejected migrants and combatting all smuggling networks’ (Hollande, 2015).

Hollande refers to the Refugee crisis as a Migration Crisis, indicating the hegemonic discourse he represents. Hollande uses speech act to securitize migration. Based on conventional securitization theory, the information and meaning we can distract from this statement is the following: Francois Hollande is the securitizing actor and the existential threat presented is terrorism. He directly links this existential threat to migration. What rests for conventional securitization theory is the identification of the audience and assess whether they accept or reject the securitizing move. The problem here is that the Refugee Crisis has not ended yet, and the influence of independent variables cannot be measured. For example, in the United Kingdom we saw that the Refugee Crisis and the Euro Crisis were (de)securitized by securitizing actors in relation to the upcoming Brexit referendum. Additionally, within France two terrorist attacks have taken place in quick succession. First in January 2015 concerning Charlie Hebdo, and in November 2015 130 people were killed in a single night in Paris. These incidents do have an impact and can be defined as policy windows. Therefore, it is important to look at more than just the speeches, securitizing moves, and acceptance or rejection.

‘Firstly, we want to speed up the establishment of refugee centres in Italy and Greece,

which will be responsible for, indeed obliged to, distinguish between asylum seekers, who must be registered, and migrants who come for other purposes but who cannot be accepted as they are. Secondly, we need to ensure that refugees are distributed fairly; at the moment, some countries in Europe are refusing to accept any’ (Hollande, 2015).

The speech by Hollande was held in-between the two terrorist attacks. After the November 2015 Paris attacks he declared a state of emergency, closing the national borders. The intermediate period, and especially this speech, shows the balancing-act between internal

67

security, fear of terrorism, refugee protection, and the distribution of refugees. This quote illustrates the balance: The facilitating variables contradict each other. He states that he wants to establish better refugee centres in other countries. Therefore he creates a speech act securitizing the distribution of refugees. He follows this with a securitizing move on fair distribution, making it seem that he believes that countries other than France do not do their due diligence, when it comes to harbouring refugees.

This quote is very interesting when assessing two independent variables established and explained in this thesis. First, the Dublin system created to deal with the distribution of refugees, is not mentioned by Hollande. The reason for this being the following statement: he wants to ‘speed up the establishment of refugee centres in Italy and Greece’ (Hollande, 2016), essentially stating that he wants to keep refugees (and migrants in general) out of France. This is supported by the data from the Migration Data base and the UNHCR. Which shows that France had ‘only’ 57.345 pending asylum requests compared to Germany’s 474.675 (Global Migration Data Analysis Centre, 2015). However, in contradiction to the first part of this quote, the second securitizing move shows France’s historical heritage: The Republican tradition, based on sovereignty, citizenship, and rights of man. This made France a very tolerant country as explained in the method chapter. However, the last five decades this tolerant position has started to shift towards a harsher position. The unease surrounding migration has been impacted to such an extent by the terrorist attacks that the president of France is not even certain of his position. Therefore this quote is the perfect example of this transition that is taking place in French society.

‘I would like to conclude by discussing Europe. I have stated our main priority today: to be

able to control migration, against a backdrop of international crises which we must resolve.

To be able to deal with ongoing tensions which, as we know all too well, can be exploited by extremist movements. To be able to provide reassurance and protection at the same time. We

have a duty to protect. To protect our territories, our populations, while remaining true to our principles of humanity and determination. We must do so as a country which must shoulder its responsibilities, do so within Europe, for Europe and with Europe, and this is the significance of the European Council meeting which must take key decisions, based on proposals which we have drawn up and which others can enhance’ (Hollande, 2015). This third extract from his speech shows a continuation of this discrepancy. However, this time Hollande actually states the schism that is taking place: ‘We have a duty to protect. To protect our territories, our populations, while remaining true to our principles of humanity and

68

determination’ (Hollande, 2015). He opens with an indicator of a securitizing move by emphasising ‘duty’. He continues by focusing on sovereignty and internal security, only to immediately state that France must stay true to principles of humanity and determination, principles grounded in the Republican tradition. This shows that the use of facilitating variables in this speech is conflicting. He uses speech act to securitize and desecuritize at the same time. He combines facilitating variables representing politics of exception with discourses of desecuritization.

In this quote the power relations framework becomes visible as well. Within France President Hollande is ‘the’ political leader. Within the power relation framework, the balance between popular will (the people) and him (political leader) is the indicator of how he represents the French population. Based on his speech, the independent variables discussed, and the mix of facilitating variables used by him it is possible to conclude that France as a nation state does not know what position to take on the Refugee Crisis. On the one hand Hollande chooses to use strong language (speech acts) to present himself as a strong leader for France, on the other he shows uncertainty and fear by putting emphasis on the tolerant history that France has. He struggles with this discrepancy, and his country with him.